m 







I LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.! 



#«'• 



rfoprigJif fo. 



Y 



f ^^f .xc» 

# ■ 

If UNITED STATES OP AMERICA. J| 



CHURCH-MEMBERS' 



HAND-BOOK OF THEOLOGY 



BY 

NORVELL ROBERTSON, 

Pastor op Bethany Church, Silver Creek, Miss. 



PUBLISHED FOR THE AUTHOR, 

BY THE 

SOUTHERN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY, 
MEMPHIS, TENN. 

1874. 









COPYRIGHT, 1874, BY NORVELL ROBERTSON. 



1 









CONTENTS. 



PAGE 

Introduction 5 



CHAPTER I. 
On Man's Moral Nature • . 7 

CHAPTER n. 

On the Origin of Human Depravity 20 

Of Total Depravity 22 

CHAPTER m. 

Of the Human Will . . . . . . . .37 

CHAPTER IV. 
Regeneration 51 

CHAPTER Y. 
The Doctrine of Faith 60 

CHAPTER VI. 
Repentance 87 



CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER VH. 

PAGl 

Justification •'••.. 102 

CHAPTER Vm. 

The Final Perseverance of the Saints .... 144 

CHAPTER IX 

On the Inevitable and Eternal Security of the Church . 165 

CHAPTER X. 

Predestination and Election 171 

Election 186 

CHAPTER XI. 

Atonement 208 

Of the Justice of Vicarious Sufferings . . . 223 

Of the Value and Sufficiency of Atonement . . , 252 

The Extent of the Atonement 261 

The Specific Design of Atonement .... 295 

Atonement and Intercession 308 



INTRODUCTION. 



The venerable author has requested us to write an introduc- 
tion to the work which follows. It gives us pleasure to comply 
with the wish of one who stands out on the edge of the eternal 
world. We can not forbear to say that, as we read the work in 
manuscript, we were profoundly impressed with the conviction 
that the utterances were those of a heart already ripe for heaven. 
In the volume to which the reader is now introduced, it will be 
found that the author has dug down to the solid rocks on which 
his own faith rested. From a sketch in our possession, which 
will appear in some future edition of this work, we learn that 
for about forty-five years the author has believed, loved, and 
preached the great doctrines discussed in this book. 

A timid, shrinking man, the author has found his purest joy 
in the sweet quietude of a country home and pastorate. He has 
had no ambition to cross the line of that charmed circle in 
which he has moved for about a half century. However, at the 
urgent solicitation of many friends, he now consents, in the close 
of life, to furnish to others a discussion of those facts which 
have been the foundation of his own happiness 

Many persons have thought that such a book as the present 
one is needed. The passing generation has been made well 
acquainted with rites and ceremonies. The baptismal contro- 
versy has been revived. The Lord's Supper also has been the 
subject of a discussion which has swept over the whole land. 
Nor has church polity failed to command a share of public at- 
tention. And all this is well. The storm purifies the atmos- 
phere and clears the skies. The danger is not that men will give 
too much attention to these things — this is impossible — but 



INTRODUCTION. 

the danger is that they will feel too little interest in things of 
even greater importance. Many persons have correct views of 
the ordinances of God's house, while at the same time their 
knowledge of the plan of salvation is not only very limited, but 
quite defective. A great number of books have been written 
with the design of securing uniformity of practice among the 
churches, but, so far as I know, very little has been done to se. 
cure " one faith." It is insisted that our charch-members must 
be informed on the subject of baptism, and that they must guard 
with sleepless vigilance the great memorial ordinance. The 
custodians of the truth, it is claimed that they should preserve 
the apostolic form of church-government. And to all this we give 
our hearty approval. But there is something higher; such, at 
least, is the conviction of the author, and he deems it of great 
importance that, in this age, men should give more attention to 
the study of the plan of salvation. This plan ought to be un- 
derstood; we can better afford to be ignorant of any thing else. 
Our happiness here depends on it, and, what is a matter of 
graver importance, our future destiny will be determined by our 
acquaintance with this system of truth. 

The author has not discussed a great variety of subjects, but 
he has treated of just such as involve all the highest interests of 
every immortal being. The work opens with a chapter on man's 
moral nature. The depravity of the heart is but partially un- 
derstood by many, and flatly denied by others. The human will 
is another subject about which there is much confusion of 
thought. Regeneration of heart, without which no one can see 
God in peace, is a fact in regard to which there has been the 
wildest discussion. There is perhaps no truth about which men 
differ more widely. Nor are we well agreed about faith, repent- 
ance, and justification. Though these are a part of every pious 
man's experience, there is need that we shall be more perfectly 
taught. The perseverance of the saints is not well understood, 
even by those who accept the blessed doctrine. The eternal se- 
curity of the Church is a matter of doubt with some; and 
among those who accept the promise of her final triumph, there 
are so many fears and 'doubts that the hope is robbed of half the 
joy it would impart. But man's perverse will rebels most. 



INTRODUCTION. 

sternly against the great, grand facts of predestination and elec- 
tion. God's sovereign will, and His sovereign disposition of 
things according to that will, are facts which rise high above our 
feeble comprehension; and because they are. so sublime and 
awful, we push them aside, as affording no joy to the heart. 
More frequently we utterly deny the facts because we can not 
understand them. We venture to hope that these " hard doc- 
trines," as discussed in this book, will be a source of consola- 
tion to the Christian's heart. And then this volume very prop- 
erly closes with a discussion of the atonement. The world is 
full of books on this subject. When we consider the fact that 
men have the Bible to guide them, we should think there would 
be perfect agreement here. But such is not the case. We have 
here the greatest diversity of views; the theories about salva- 
tion are without number. The author has kindly stated the 
views of others, and has given the reasons why he differs from 
them. In this way he has modestly brought out his own theory. 
Such is an outline of the book the reader is now requested to 
examine. 

This book, it must be confessed, contains nothing new. The 
design has not been to uncover golden veins of new thought, 
but to bring down to the masses, in simple language, the forms 
of thought with which the student and minister are quite famil- 
iar. This has been a work of great difficulty, but it is believed 
that no term or word has been employed which a man of ordi- 
nary intelligence can not understand : and while this is true, we 
trust there is nothing in the work which can be offensive to the 
good taste of the scholar and theologian. The design has been 
to place a theological hand-book in possession of every church- 
member. 

The author has not gone over the whole field usually em 
braced in a system of theology. It was not thought necessary 
to do this. Those subjects only have been treated about which 
there was most difficulty ; and they have been discussed in such 
a way, it is hoped, as will strengthen the hearts of the pious, 
and contribute largely to secure correctness and uniformity of 
faith among God's children. This result secured, both author 
and publisher will be satisfied. 



INTRODUCTION. 

A word more in regard to the history of the author. Norvell 
Kobertson was born in Warren County, Ga., Nov. 14, 1796. 
His father, also named Norvell, was a Virginian by birth. On 
reaching manhood, he moved South and settled in Georgia. In 
the year 1804 he was called by his church to the work of the 
ministry. For fifty-one years he was an earnest and faithful 
Baptist preacher. He was called home to his reward in his 
ninety-first year. His ministerial life was spent in the States of 
Georgia and Mississippi. The son moved at an early day to 
Lawrence County, Mississippi; was converted in 1830, and a 
year later he was baptized by his father into the fellowship of 
Leaf River Baptist Church. Bethany Church, in the neighbor- 
hood of which he was teaching, and to which he moved his 
membership, a few months after this set him at liberty to preach. 
The same church, in January, 1833, set him apart, by ordina- 
tion, to the full work of the gospel ministry. Twelve months 
later he was called to the pastoral care of this church, and has 
continued in the same position for about forty-one years. Noth- 
ing could ever tempt him to leave this country church. In 1835 
he married Miss N. J. Cannon, who has been a faithful and 
worthy companion. Three little infants have gone up from the 
family circle to the paradise of God. Of the seven remaining 
children, the father has baptized all but one. 

Father Robertson, as he is familiarly called by those who 
know him, has never enjoyed good health. The weight of years 
is pressing heavily upon him; and this work is very likely the 
last contribution we shall ever have from his pen. That it may 
be greatly blessed of God, and that the author may live to see 
the fruit of his labor, is the prayer of his 

Brother in Christ Jesus, 

W. D. MAYFIELD. 

Memphis, Tenn., November 1, 1874. 



CHURCH - MEMBERS' 
HAND BOOK OF THEOLOGY. 



CHAPTEE I. 

on man's moral nature. 



There is scarcely any important doctrine taught 
in the Bible that has not been made the subject of 
controversy. While great numbers acknowledge the 
Divine authenticity of the Holy Scriptures, and ear- 
nestly contend for their supreme authority in all matters 
relating to God and His will — profess implicit subjection 
to their teaching, and contend for them as the only 
and perfect standard of truth and error, in all matters 
of faith and practice — still there are wide differences 
of opinion and endless controversies among them, and 
have been in all the ages of the Christian dispensation. 
To say that this is owing to any obscurity or ambi- 
guity in Divine Eevelation is to charge God foolishly. 
The sacred Scriptures were designed to give us the 
knowledge of God and His Will ; and if they are not 
competent to convey to us the true knowledge of the 
character and will of God, they fail to answer the 



8 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

purpose for which they were intended. And there is 
no alternative — we are left without a guide. That we 
may obtain some knowledge of God, and our relations 
to Him, as the rightful subjects of His moral govern- 
ment, without revelation, is true enough. But of that 
knowledge which is necessary to our acceptance with 
Him, and which will secure our salvation, we can 
learn nothing — absolutely nothing — but what we learn 
from the written word. And from the inspired record 
we may, if we will, learn all that is necessary for our 
faith, our duty, and our eternal destiny. From works 
of creation, and the ordinary course of Divine Provi- 
dence, in connection with man's intellectual and moral 
constitution, we may learn enough of God and our 
relations to Him to make us accountable subjects of 
His government; but we can not by these means gain 
the least degree of knowledge of the way of eternal 
life. The Holy Scriptures are the only source from 
which we can derive the least degree of light upon the 
subject of our salvation. Without the Eible we can 
never attain to a saving knowledge of the true God and 
eternal life; neither can we, without it, ever acquire a 
right knowledge of ourselves, and our true character 
in the sight of God ; nor can we rightly understand 
the relation in which we stand to Him. Ignorance 
and error will characterize all our speculations upon 
these subjects, any further than they are based upon 
the clear light of God's revealed truth. But the in- 
structions of the word of God upon these subjects are 
clear and explicit, and if we fall into any essential 
error, it is not for want of adequate instructions, but 
because we are indisposed to receive implicitly the 
plain teachings of the Bible. Many there are who 
would disdain to seek spiritual light in a liomish con- 



ON MAN S MORAL NATURE. 9 

fessional : but they will explore the fields of natural 

science in search of spiritual truth. The latter would 
certainly be the more pleasant employment to a truly 
rational mind: but. what is the difference in the final 

event? We may be led by the hand of blind super- 
stition till we fall into the ditch, or we may be beguiled 
into it by the false light of philosophy. I do not say 
this with a view to depreciate natural science: no 
man can hold it in higher esteem than I do: but the 
way of salvation is to be found in the infallible word 
of God. and nowhere else. To verify the truth of 
these remarks, nothing more would be necessary than 
to mention a few celebrated names found recorded in 
modern history — men upon whose minds the sun of 
science has shed its brightest rays; but what do those 
men say of the true light — the light that shines in a 
dark place? 

The word of God is truth. What He says of Him- 
self is truth, though it may not entirely coincide with 
our views of what He ought to be : but He alone knows 
Himself. What He says of us is truth, for He knows 
us far better than we know ourselves: yet the charac- 
ter He gives us may not be quite agreeable to the 
opinion we entertain of ourselves. And what God says 
of His purposes and His will is true: but we can know 
nothing at all of His purposes, except what He has 
revealed in His word. 

\Te should deal honestly with ourselves, and not be 
afraid to know the very worst of our condition as con- 
demned sinners before God: and Ave should also deal 
honestly with ourselves, and be willing to know and 
confess the very worst of our character as sinful in our 
nature. It would be good for us to know the whole 
extent of our alienation from God, and our want of 



10 CHURCH MEMBERS' HAND-BOOK OF THEOLOGY. 

a perfect conformity of heart to the law and will of 
God. 

But men are unwilling to believe that they sustain 
that character in the sight of God which is given 
to them in the Holy Scriptures. Almost every man 
thinks he possesses some good qualities. Some will 
estimate their moral worth very high, while others 
will entertain a more humble opinion of their personal 
goodness; but all have claims, in their own esteem, to 
a degree, less or more, to something which is com- 
mendable in the sight of God. Now, if they would 
confine their pretensions to what is generally termed 
moral goodness — such qualities as are good in them- 
selves, and justly commendable in the estimation of the 
social community — there ought to be no controversy 
on the subject. Their claims in this respect would bo 
just, on every principle of sound reason, and fully sup- 
ported by the sacred scriptures. But we suppose there 
are very few, if any, who are so blind to their own im- 
perfections as to imagine that they are morally perfect, 
and wholly free from any principles, or dispositions, or 
inclinations to things that are evil. And when men 
regard themselves as being possessed of a degree of 
moral virtue, and know that they are sustained in 
their opinion by the public sentiment, they readily 
conclude that there is in them, by nature, a degree of 
moral goodness in the sight of God. They, therefore, 
persuade themselves that the good moral traits in their 
character, and the good moral actions they perform, are 
somewhat meritorious in the sight of God, and must, 
to some extent, secure His favor — when at the same 
time, in all probability, they would bo just as good as 
they are, and act just as well as they do, if they be- 
lieved that God never sees their actions. A man may 



on man's moral nature. 11 

perform an act of kindness, because prompted by the 
feelings of common humanity. Or he may do it in 
order to gain or preserve the respect and confidence 
of the community in which he lives. Or he may re- 
spect himself as a rational man, too much to debase 
himself in his own esteem by beastliness. And all this 
is well in its place, but it may be done while God is 
not in all his thoughts; and an Atheist would do no 
less. 

On the subject of human depravity there have been 
conflicting opinions among writers and preachers in 
almost every age since the days of the apostles; and 
this will probably continue to be the case for ages to 
come, or till the brightness of the millennial day shall 
dispel the darkness of error in a much greater degree 
than in the present age. I am not vain enough to 
hope that I shall be able to settle this controversy ; 
but if I can suggest any thought to the mind of the 
reader that will be profitable, I shall not think my 
time and labor wasted. 

One great reason why men, even good men, differ so 
much in their views of the doctrine, is because they 
affix different ideas to the words employed to express 
it. One gives the term depravity a much greater ex- 
tent of application than another. That human nature 
is depraved in some measure, I believe all admit. 
None will contend that man is, by nature, absolutely 
perfect — that he is perfect in holiness ; and none 
ought to contend that man is utterly incapable in 
every respect of doing a good moral action. All may 
admit that there is in us, by nature, a tendency to 
things that are sinful, and freely subscribe to the 
doctrine that human nature is, to some extent, morally 
corrupt. 



12 CHURCH-MEMBERS' HAND-BOOK OF THEOLOGY. 

Id forming a judgment upon this subject, there is 
one thing that should never be overlooked, if we 
desire to know the truth: we are all naturally in- 
clined to think we are better than we are. This has 
the effect to warp the judgment, and lead to an erro- 
neous conclusion. Every man should keep a jealous 
guard over this self-partiality. This is the occasion 
of innumerable errors, and is a dangerous foe to our 
spiritual interest. It is one of the strongest weapons 
in Satan's armor; or like an open gate in a fortress, 
at which the enemy can enter at any time, and there- 
fore should be guarded with unceasing vigilance. 

Holiness and sinfulness are directly contrary to each 
other; and our conceptions of the former are so very 
imperfect, that we have very imperfect and erroneous 
views of the latter. Hence we form false notions of 
the degree of our alienation from God — that is the 
degree of our moral depravity. 

In order to ascertain as nearly as we well can, to 
what extent we may properly apply the principle of 
depravity — that is, the sinfulness of our nature to 
the human soul — it is necessary that we observe the 
proper distinction between those attributes of the 
mind which are purely intellectual or mental, and 
those which we term moral. As this distinction is im- 
portant in the present inquiry, I must dwell a little 
on this point. I will specify : Mental perception is that 
faculty or power of the mind by which we are able to 
distinguish the difference between things — by which 
we know that a part is less than the whole — by which 
we know that two is more than one. This we call an 
intellectual or mental attribute or faculty. By exer- 
cising the power of the understanding we acquire 
knowledge on any subject; by the powers of the 



on man's moral nature. 13 

memory we retain that knowledge; by the judgment 
we compare the relative weight of evidence on any 
question, and are able to decide in matters of truth 
and error, right and wrong. These we term intellectual 
or mental attributes : they are also sometimes called 
physical powers, to distinguish them from the moral 
attributes; though the word physical is more generally 
applied to the organization and activities of the body, 
in distinction from those of the mind. But perhaps I 
ought here to notify or remind some of my readers 
that as God has no bodily attributes (because He has no 
bodily organization), we are under a kind of necessity 
to distinguish His attributes by the terms physical and 
moral. Thus His power and wisdom are called phys- 
ical attributes, and His love and goodness are moral 
attributes. 

But in respect to those attributes of the mind which 
we term moral, it is necessary to specify only a few — 
justice, kindness, truth, chastity, etc. If a man is 
deficient in any of these he is not considered a good 
man. A man is not blamable simply for thinking, but 
he is blameworthy for evil-thinking ; he is not blamable 
merely for speaking, but for evil-speaking he is culpable. 
Mere desire is not, in itself, sinful, but unlawful desire 
is sinful. 

There are duties which we owe to God which we do 
not owe to man ; but all the duties we owe to one 
another, even all duties, are included in our duty to 
God. We may fail in the discharge of our peculiar 
duties to God, and yet not sin against our fellow-men ; 
but if we fail to fulfill any duty we owe to others, 
or to ourselves, we sin against God. Hence moral 
depravity is always to be considered in relation to 
God. The word holiness includes all that is good, and 



14 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

the word sinfulness includes all that is not good. No 
action, or word, or thought of man is destitute of moral 
character in the sight of God; every thought is either 
holy or sinful in His sight. And any thought, or word, 
or action of man that does not possess the character 
of holiness in the sight of God, is sinful. There must 
be in it the element of positive holiness^ or it is not 
good in His sight, but is necessarily sinful. 

It is highly important, as I have said, that we keep 
this distinction between the mental and moral nature 
of man in view. Because I hold that the mental or in- 
tellectual powers of man are not depraved. They are 
not subjects of moral character. In themselves they 
are neither morally good nor morally bad. They have 
no inherent tendencies or proclivities to good or evil, 
but are, as it were, the instruments of our moral nature, 
and always obey its dictates. On the supposition that 
man is an order of beings inferior to angels, yet Adam 
was, in his created character, as holy as Gabriel ; and 
Satan may be even- now, in his intellectual powers, as 
great as Gabriel, yet no one will say that he is not 
totally depraved in his moral nature. The unjust 
steward exhibited great intellectual power in devising 
the means of support, after he was displaced from his 
office, and his Lord commended him because he acted 
wisely ; but no one would commend him for acting dis- 
honestly. It was his duty to exercise his mental 
powers the best he could, but the sinfulness of his con- 
duct is to be referred to his depraved moral principles. 
The assassin plunges the dagger into the heart of his 
enemy: — there is no moral depravity in the dagger, for 
it is not, and can not be, the subject of moral char- 
acter ; there is no depravity in the arm that forced the 
dagger, for the very same reason ; and for the same 



on man's moral nature. 15 

reason, there is no moral depravity in the mental dis- 
cernment and correct judgment that directed the in- 
strument to the vital organ, for all these might have 
been employed in a similar act, in a lawful way ; but 
the moral corruption attaches to the malicious disposi- 
tion of the heart, which influenced the will to commit 
the deed. The sheriff who executes a criminal, em- 
ploys the intellectual powers of his mind as diligently 
as the assassin ; but this he does because it is his duty. 
He does it, not to gratify an evil disposition, but to ful- 
fill a lawful obligation. He does right, and the right- 
eousness of the act is founded in the motives which in- 
duce him to perform it. 

I must be indulged to dwell a little longer on this 
point, because, for want of observing this distinction, 
the doctrine of human depravity is often misapplied 
and perverted to the cause of error. If the teacher 
does not, yet the hearer applies the doctrine to those 
actings of the mind which it is the moral duty of every 
man to exercise ; and, on the other hand, they will 
exempt from sinfulness those dispositions and inclina- 
tions which are the very seat of moral depravity, and 
source of all sinful thoughts, words, and actions. 

Being desirous to exhibit the subject as plainly as I 
possibly can, I will have recourse to another exem- 
plification : " Thou art of purer eyes than to behold 
evil, and canst not look on iniquity." Now let us notice 
the term 'canst not:' We learn here that God can not 
endure the sight of iniquity. This is not said merely 
by way of emphasis; the prophet speaks Divine truth. 
But what is the reason that God can not look upon 
sin ? He looks upon and sees all things, and sees every 
thing just as it is. But on account of the infinite holi- 
ness of His nature He can not endure the sight of sin 
2 



16 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

with the least degree of toleration. It is not from any 
imperfection in bis power, but owing to the perfection 
of His holiness. It is contrary to His nature, and 
therefore He can not behold evil otherwise than with 
abhorrence and indignation. But again : It is said of 
some, " Having eyes full of adultery that can not cease 
from sin." Here we have a similar mode of expres- 
sion — they can not cease from sin. Such persons are 
not blind. They have ability to employ their eyes in 
reading the word of God, that they may learn and do 
His will. They might use their eyes for holy purposes, 
as well as for lascivious purposes, but by reason of the 
unholiness or depravity of their nature they can not 
cease from sin. God always acts, and must act, in per- 
fect conformity with His holy nature, and therefore 
can not sin; and man always acts in conformity with 
his unholy nature, and therefore can not cease from sin. 
Strictly speaking, neither the faculties of the mind nor 
the members of the body are depraved ; but both are 
governed and controlled by his carnal and worldly 
heart. Both may yield themselves as instruments of 
righteousness unto holiness, or they may yield them- 
selves as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin ; and 
by reason of the depravity of man's moral nature, they 
do the latter — "fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of 
the mind." 

In the foregoing remarks I would not be understood 
to advance the doctrine that the mental powers of man 
have sustained no injury by our apostasy from God, 
and that the intellectual faculties are in every respect 
as perfect as they were in creation, and while man con- 
tinued in a state of primeval holiness. I think far 
otherwise. I believe that man possesses now all the 
original mental faculties with which he was endowed 



on man's moral nature. 17 

in his creation ; but, by reason of sin, and the alienation 
of his moral nature from God, these faculties are 
greatly impaired. Indeed, I entertain the opinion that 
the powers of the human mind are, in consequence of 
sin, impaired to a far greater extent than is generally 
supposed, and than many would be willing to admit. 
If sin had never found entrance among the human 
family, I have scarcely a doubt that every man would 
now possess a degree of knowledge in things, both 
natural and Divine, incomparably greater than any 
man has ever attained in this world to the present 
day — only he would have known nothing of God's 
method of saving sinners, because that would not have 
been revealed. A man may possess every member of 
the body, not one lacking, but a leg maybe broken, an 
arm paralyzed, the eyes diseased or injured, so that he 
is incapable of those exercises which properly pertain 
to a perfect human body; so the powers of his mind 
have suffered such a degree of detriment that he is 
now little more than the ruins of what he was when he 
first surveyed the works of his God. In consequence 
of moral depravity, the understanding is darkened, 
mental perception is weakened, the judgment is per- 
verted, etc. But they are not morally depraved, be- 
cause they are not, properly speaking, the subjects of 
moral character. A staff may be broken so as to be 
of little use, but the timber may still be sound; so is 
our intellectual nature — it is physically impaired, but 
not morally depraved. An egg may be whole, not a 
fracture in it, but it may be rotten ; so is our moral 
nature. 

The distinction between a natural ability and a 
moral ability is not merely technical or artificial, as 
some affect to believe; it is a real distinction, as much 



18 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

so as the distinction between a man's desire to take his 
child in his arms, and the muscular strength by which 
he performs the deed. And he that can not see the dis- 
tinction, should not set himself up as a teacher — even 
a teacher of babes. The terras "power" " ability," " in- 
ability," and other words of similar force, being often 
used indefinitely, and with considerable latitude of ap- 
plication, may contribute somewhat to that confusion 
and indistinctness of thought which appear to embarrass 
the minds of persons on this subject. They do not con- 
sider that that may be possible in one respect which 
is impossible in another respect. If I should say a 
man has ability to think and judge — meaning the mind 
of the man — it would be true ; but if I should affirm 
this of a man, meaning the mere body of the man, it 
would be false; for it is impossible for mere -matter to 
think and judge. The confirmed atheist has as much 
natural ability to repeat the Lord's Prayer as any of 
His apostles had, but he has absolutely no ability to 
pray that prayer "with the spirit and the understand- 
ing." The natural man may have as much natural 
ability to sing as the holiest saint on earth ; and he 
would sing the ballad of *" Death and Dr. Hornbook" 
with as much spiritual devotion as he would the fifty- 
first Psalm. The distinction between the intellectual 
powers of man and his moral powers, is as real as the 
distinction between his bodily powers and the powers 
of his mind. 

That the will is the ruling faculty of the mind in 
man, needs no proof; and that the will is not subject to 
reason, is evident, from both experience and observa- 
tion, to every one who has given a tolerable degree of 
attention to the subject. Man often acts knowingly in 
opposition to every dictate of sound reason. He knows 



ON man's moral nature. 19 

what is right, but the will is influenced by the passions, 
the appetites, avarice, pride, revenge, etc., and deter- 
mines his actions contrary to his judgment, and in 
opposition even to the dictates of his conscience. 

I have taken the ground that the purely mental 
powers of man are not susceptible of moral depravity, 
and therefore are not depraved, though they are im- 
paired ; and that depravity is confined to the moral 
faculties. I know not how far the intelligent reader 
will concur in this view. I might have said a great 
deal more on this particular point, but I should not 
have said so much, but for the bearing the subject 
must have upon other important doctrines which must 
necessarily come under consideration in the progress 
of this work. I desist on this point, but on the gen- 
eral subject of human depravity something more is 
required. 



20 church-members' hand-book of theology. 



CHAPTEK II. 

ON THE ORIGIN OF HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 

We will now briefly inquire how it is that we are 
the subjects of a depraved nature. There are many 
who seem to think that man is now, in respect to the 
parity of his nature, just as he was when he was first 
created. But it would be preposterous, and even blas- 
phemous, to say that a holy God created man with an 
unholy nature, and then pronounced him good. We 
must seek for the origin of our moral corruption in 
some other direction; for there is no unholiness in the 
Divine nature — therefore He could not impart sinfulness 
to -His creatures. One has a black skin, and another 
has a white skin : how does this come to pass ? The 
answer is obvious ; we derive our natural complexion 
from our parents. There is a universal law of uature 
that "like produces like." Every vegetable that grows 
out of the earth, and every animal that inhabits it, de- 
rives its own peculiar nature from the parent — not by 
imitation, not by instruction, nor by example, but by 
natural descent. If, therefore, we account for our own 
peculiar nature in the same way, we reason in con- 
formity with a universal law of nature ; and there can 
be no solid reason assigned why man should be an ex- 
ception to this Jaw, and the only exception. Hence 
it is not philosophical to ascribe our depravity to any 
other than a natural cause. And if we could trace the 



ON THE ORIGIN OF HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 21 

moral nature of our parentage upward to the first 
man, we should not be able to find the origin of our 
depravity anywhere this side of that source. And 
further, if we direct our inquiries to any other depart- 
ment of creation, we shall search in vain for this 
moral malady. 

By what means it was that our first parents became 
infected with moral depravity, is another question, 
and may possibly engage our attention hereafter. 
Certainly, it was not by creation. 

"We must take ourselves just as we now are ; and 
our own sins we must charge to our own selves, for 
the righteous Judge will certainly charge them to us. 
We possess mental abilities by which we are able to 
distinguish between right and wrong — between good 
and evil; and if we choose the evil and refuse the good, 
it is plain that we are justly liable to the necessary 
consequences of our own voluntary and sinful choice. 
The path of duty is made plain, and we are forewarned 
of the consequences of disobedience ; and it matters 
not how we became possessed of a disobedient spirit, 
if we voluntarily choose the way that leads to death, 
it is just that we abide the consequences. And what 
is this depravity, less or more, than a prevailing dis- 
position or inclination to that which is evil? The 
power to discern between right and wrong is not ex- 
tinguished in the mind of any human being where in- 
sanity has not supervened. The most ignorant and 
besotted savages understand the difference sufficiently 
to render them amenable to justice. And the most 
debased tribes of our species have their laws, or estab- 
lished customs, for the punishment of evil-doers. Our 
perception of this distinction is a part of our natural 
knowledge, and has its foundation in the fact that we 



22 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

are intelligent beings. We do not need the light of 
revelation to enable us to know enough of the prin- 
ciples of right and wrong, to render us accountable, 
for we know enough for that by the light of nature. 
Some persons have clearer perceptions of this principle 
than others ; and we who have the benefit of the light 
of Divine revelation are under additional responsibili- 
ties, corresponding with our superior advantages. 
And justice must award a punishment in proportion to 
the increased degree of our guilt. Our knowledge of 
the Divine will is sufficient to render us responsible 
agents ; and our unwillingness to do that will, makes 
our condemnation just. We disobey because we are 
unwilling to obey. This is the very reason why we 
do those things that are forbidden. 

Of Total Depravity. 

It will be recollected that I have said that few, if 
any, will pretend that man is absolutely perfect in 
holiness. It will be admitted that man is, to some ex- 
tent, naturally inclined to things that are unholy in the 
sight of God. This point being conceded, we proceed 
to inquire whether man is "totally depraved" as we 
commonly express the idea. The question of man's 
total depravity has been a subject of dispute among 
the learned and the unlearned almost from time imme- 
morial. We are hardly in a condition to render an 
impartial verdict, because man is a party interested 
in the decision. It is a rule in equity that a man is 
not to be the judge in his own cause. 

I chose to reserve this important question, till I had 
submitted some thoughts on the general subject of 
human nature, that the reader might be the better 



OF TOTAL DEPRAVITY. 23 

prepared to understand my views on the subject of 
total depravity. 

Is man totally depraved ? Is he so utterly alienated 
in heart from God and holiness that he is incapable 
of rendering to God any acceptable worship and serv- 
ice ? The evidence is such as forces me to take the 
affirmative. I believe that all of man's nature that is 
susceptible of spiritual corruption is depraved. If the 
word of God does not support this doctrine, then I 
will consent that the controversy shall hinge on the 
principles of human reasoning, and logical inferences 
from general truths. But if the plain statements of the 
Holy Scriptures, fairly interpreted, will decide the 
question, I will not hold myself bound to follow an 
opponent through all his abstruse speculations, and 
answer all the disingenuous quibbles he may choose 
to interpose. I shall address my arguments to those 
who acknowledge implicitly the supreme authority 
of Divine inspiration. 

1. I lay it down as a fundamental principle that the 
depravity of which we are speaking relates wholly 
to things spiritual, and must be considered exclusively 
in respect to our relations to God. Consequently, 

Whatever may pertain to our nature that may be 
regarded as good in itself, and whatever good dispo- 
sitions we may possess or entertain, toward our fellow-, 
creatures, excepting as above stated, is not competent 
evidence against total depravity. 

2. Again: I lay it down as a fundamental truth, that 
if there is not in our nature a principle of holiness — ■ 
positive holiness, even " holiness to the Lord" — then our 
depravity is total. For, 

That holiness which is required is an active and op- 
erative principle, that must produce holy fruits ; it is 
3 



24 CHURCH-MEMBERS HAND-BOOK OF THEOLOGY. 

not a mere negative virtue ; the mere absence of sin- 
fulness. Even if it were possible — which it is not — ■ 
that there could be such a neutral character as a 
human being without sinfulness, and without holiness, 
he would sustain no moral relation to God whatever. 
If there is not the element of activity in our holiness, 
there can be no acceptable obedience, for obedience 
consists in doing the will of God. 

We will now proceed to examine the direct evidence 
contained in the word of God. 

" You hath he quickened, who were dead in tres- 
passes and in sins; wherein in time past ye walked 
according to the course of this world, according to the 
prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now 
worketh in the children of disobedience: among whom 
also we all had our conversation in times past in the 
lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and 
of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, 
even as others." (Eph. ii. 1-3.) What is the doctrine 
of this passage of Scripture? u You who were dead in 
trespasses and in sins." Can evidence be more decisive 
than this? It is hardly possible to find language that 
will teach total depravity in a more determinate and 
unqualified manner than this does. No stronger term 
can be found in any language than the word dead. 
And the adjuncts, in trespasses and sins, fully show the 
nature of the death intended by the Holy Spirit, To 
modify the meaning of the word, is to attempt to im- 
prove the diction of the Divine Witness! If the in- 
spired writer did not mean all that his language im- 
ports, he surely could have adopted a different mode 
of expression, without using terms which would neces- 
sarily be false. The language is not hortative nor 
poetical, but a grave statement of a most solemn 



OF TOTAL DEPRAVITY. 25 

and important truth. If man is not spiritually dead, 
he is spiritually alive. This is self-evident. There 
can be no intermediate ground for a debater to con- 
tend upon. Dead to all that is holy and spiritual. — ■ 
"In trespasses and in sins." This phrase fixes and de- 
fines the term dead. ^N"ot deprived of the use of our 
mental powers, or the exercise of our moral affections, 
but wholly under the power of our carnal nature; or, 
in other words, totally depraved. Living, not in the 
holiness of the Spirit, but the lusts of the flesh. "And 
the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit 
-against the flesh, and these two are contrary the one 
to the other." Before we are born of the Spirit, we 
"fulfill the desires of the flesh and of the mind. - ' And 
these desires, not merely coming short of conformity 
to the Spirit of holiness, but being contrary to it Who 
will say, that he who fulfills that which is contrary to 
holiness, possesses the spirit of holiness? While in a 
state of nature, and dead in trespasses and sins, we 
walk - ; according to the course of this world." 1^ the 
course of this world holy in any respect or in any de- 
gree? If it is, the world is in the right road to 
heaven. But it is * ; according to the prince of the 
power of the air" — that is, Satan. Does the Spirit of 
God dwell in the man that walks according to — that is, 
in conformity with — the will of Satan? Also.- it is the 
same spirit that " now works in the children of diso- 
bedience" elsewhere said to be the children of the 
devil. They are " of their father the devil, and the 
desires of their father they will do/' The saints at 
Ephesus had been "by nature the children of wrath." 
Because they were by nature the children of disobedi- 
ence, they are, therefore, said to be by nature the chil- 
dren of wrath. 



26 CHURCH- members' hand-book of theology. 

Besides all this, if we are disposed to be consistent 
in our interpretation of the text, we are bound to con- 
sider the term dead in sin with reference to the an- 
tithesis, "quickened" or made alive. If, spiritually, we 
are dead, we are not alive; and if we are alive, we are 
not dead; and, therefore, do not need to be made alive. 
If we are not spiritually dead, there is no consistency 
in the apostle's instruction, and no propriety in his 
language. This passage of Scripture alone ought to be 
decisive on the question, and satisfactory to every 
obedient mind. That the doctrine it teaches is at war 
with the natural pride of man's heart, is true enough , 
but I believe the same may be said of every funda- 
mental doctrine revealed in the Bible. Such is the in- 
nate hostility of the unrenewed heart against God and 
His truth. 

We will proceed to consider some other scriptures, 
with but little comment. The same form of expression 
as that we have just considered is used in the fifth 
verse of the same chapter, and again in Col. ii. 13. In 
Eph. iv. 18, we read, " Being alienated from the life 
of God," etc. Here the same doctrine is taught in dif- 
ferent words, but in plain language. The fact that the 
apostle adopts a different phraseology to convey the 
same idea makes the point all the more definite, and 
precludes evasion. The apostle John, in his first epis- 
tle (v. 19), speaking of the unbelieving world, says : 
"The whole world lieth in wickedness; " or, "in the 
wicked one," as in the margin. Can it be properly 
said of those that " lie in wickedness," that they have 
the life of God in them? The apostle is speaking of 
the whole world, as distinguished from those who are 
"of God." There is no room here for evasion. Again 
(1 John iii. 14): "We know that we have passed from 



OF TOTAL DEPRAVITY. 27 

death unto life," etc. And Jesus says: "But is passed 
from death unto life." (John v. 24.) You may eon- 
suit the context; I omit it because there is but one 
point to which I design to direct your attention. We 
find here a passing from death unto life. These words 
must be understood in a positive sense, for they do 
not admit of being used in a comparative sense. Ex- 
cept, then, we are dissatisfied with the truth they teach, 
we are bound to understand them as meaning positive 
death and positive life. If, therefore, -we possess by 
nature a particle of spiritual life, there is no propriety 
in saying we pass from death unto life. If any should 
say these terms are used in different applications, and 
that it is necessary to ascertain to what subject they 
are applied, I freely admit it. These terms are some- 
times employed figuratively, and applied to different 
subjects. But in every place in the above quotations, 
they are manifestly used in a spiritual sense. The 
terms are strictly correlative, and placed in opposition 
to each other ; and must be understood according to 
the antithesis, or they convey no definite idea, and give 
us no instruction. That state of life into which we 
pass by the transition, is a life that previously, while 
in the state of death, had no existence in us. The 
kind of life to which John refers in his epistle, is made 
so plain by the connection, that no unbiased mind can 
be at a loss for his meaning. Before the transition we 
are spiritually dead, and after it we are spiritually 
alive. While spiritually dead we are as incapable of 
doing any thing spiritually good, as the dead body of 
a man is of performing any useful action. 

I will now cite you to other scriptures which clearly 
teach the same doctrine, and, without much comment, 
leave them to your own reflection : " But without 






28 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

faith it is impossible to please Him" (God). (Heb. xi. 
6.) Now faith is a fruit of the Spirit, and we can not 
have the faith until the Spirit is given to us. Again, 
" They that are in the flesh can not please God." (Kom. 
viii. 8.) "They that are in the flesh — "that is, they 
that are in a state of nature ; for this is the sense in 
which Paul generally uses the phrase, and the context 
shows that this is the apostle's meaning. Whatever 
ability we may ascribe to the natural man, these scrip- 
tures certify that he is not able to please God. And a 
good reason for it is, that whatever pleases the natural 
man does not please God. And here we see the ex- 
tent of the natural ability of man to do that which is 
spiritually good — he can not please God. In the third 
chapter of Eomans it is said, " There is no fear of God 
before their e}'es." Examine this chapter from the 
ninth to the eighteenth verse, and see if you can sub- 
vert the doctrine of total depravity. Again, our Savior 
says, " I know you that ye have not the love of God 
in you." (John v. 42.) How much more can a man 
be depraved, than to be totally destitute of the love of 
God? "The carnal mind is enmity against God." 
(.Rom. viii. 7.) "For I know that in me (that is, in 
my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing." (Eom. vii. 18.) 
To these testimonies others might be added ; but if they 
are not satisfactory without additional evidence, it ap- 
pears to me the fault must be in the judge and not in 
the witnesses. Let the candid reader review the fore- 
going quotations, and sum up the characteristics there 
ascribed to human nature, and I do not see how he 
can avoid the conclusion that man's moral nature is 
totally depraved. The word of God is a "sure word," 
and " true from the beginning." If we will be guided 
by its light, it will always lead us to true knowledge ; 



OF TOTAL DEPRAVITY. 29 

but if our aversion to the doctrines it reveals is such 
that we choose to walk in the darkness of our own 
speculations, we shall eventually see the end of our 
wanderings. 

In addition to the direct proofs exhibited in the fore- 
going quotations, the doctrine under discussion is sus- 
ceptible of strong, and, as I chink, unanswerable proof, 
by induction from the general doctrines of the gospel, 
as received by ail who can rationally claim a title to be 
called evangelical. Doctrines which most Christians 
profess, and which are contended for by Christians 
generally — those in this country, at least — even by those 
who do not subscribe to the tenet of total depravity, 
are inconsistent with the opposite opinion. 

We are taught that before we can have any Scripture 
ground to believe that we are converted, or in a saved 
state, we must be the subjects of a great change — a 
real change of heart; and that this is something more 
than a mere outward reformation; that this inward 
change is the special work of the Holy Spirit. This 
is a fundamental principle, and is generally accepted 
as such. If I were engaged in writing a strictly 
polemic discourse I should have no need to take 
advantage of this acknowledgment, but I would con- 
tent myself with coming at once to the Divine record. 
Thus our Savior said to Xicodemus, k - Ye must be born 
again."* We are said to be " born of the Spirit." The 
Holy Spirit is the author, or agent, of this new birth. 
Hence we are said to be u begotten of God." These 
scriptures with many others teach that a real change 
must be effected in our moral nature, in order to our 
becoming the proper subjects of the kingdom of Christ. 
For such expressions surely can not imply any thing 
less. And hence it is insisted on so earnestly by all 



30 CHURCH-MEMBERS HAND BOOK OF THEOLOGY. 

our evangelical preachers and writers, and occupies 
a prominent place in so many of our confessions of 
faith. The necessity of conversion^ as it is generally 
called, is urged with a zeal and pertinacity almost 
worthy of its importance. And this work of conver- 
sion is always attributed to the Holy Spirit. "We are 
constantly taught that we must be born of the Spirit, 
else we can not be the children of God; and that this 
change is beyond the power of man, and is wrought 
by the power of God. In perfect agreement with this 
view, ministers and all Christians offer up their fervent 
prayers, to God, that He would convert sinners from 
the error *of their way. The Holy Scriptures abun- 
dantly ascribe this work to God. And the Lord him- 
self speaks of it as his own work, and promises to per- 
form it : "I will put my Spirit within you." " I will 
put my laws into their minds, and write, them in their 
hearts." "I will give you a new heart." Thus we 
read— "The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts 
by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us." It is the 
Holy Ghost which convinces us of sin, of righteous- 
ness, etc. 

'Now if man is not totally depraved,, there is a part 
in him that does not need this change, and is not a 
subject of renewing grace. And his salvation is partly 
of nature and partly of grace. It is partly of God, 
and partly of himself. It is held by some that by the 
death of Christ, the Spirit is spread in every man's 
heart, by which he is able to reinstate himself in the 
favor of God. But this is destitute of Scripture proof — 
it is a mere assumption ; and, in fact, it is virtually 
taking for granted the main point in debate. They 
that take this ground must substantiate their position 
by adequate proofs from the Bible, which, I am sure, 



OF TOTAL DEPRAVITY. 31 

is a task they will never be able to perform. But till 
the proofs are fairly given we can not admit any argu- 
ments drawn from that source. Whether the death of 
Christy of itself, could do it, is exceedingly doubtful ; 
and that it did not do it, is, I think, very clear, for the 
whole teDor of Bible instruction is in opposition to such 
an idea. The ground usually taken is, that man is by 
nature possessed of a portion of spiritual life, or 
strength, or grace, or whatever it may be rightly 
called, which, if he will improve, or properly use and 
cultivate, he may become a Christian and a true child 
of God. Now if I were to concede the whole ground 
taken here, I might still contend that man is totally 
unable to bring himself into a state of grace, or even 
to do any thing which would be pleasing and accept- 
able to God, because the whole burden of this argu- 
ment is made to rest upon the condition "if he will " — 
and the Scripture declares that he will not. So this 
lever is altogether too weak to overturn the doctrine 
of total depravity. On the doctrine of the will I hope 
to discourse before we have done with the subject of 
depravity. For the present, however, I wish to in- 
quire what that germ or seed of grace is, that we have 
by nature — that' every man brings into the world with 
him — or which, at some period of life previous to ac- 
countability, is given to every man. Great stress is 
laid upon it by some. It is made one of the strongest 
pillars upon which is built the scheme of our salva- 
tion, as taught in some systems of theology. If the 
doctrine is true, it behooves every man to understand 
it, for it devolves upon us an immense responsibility 
over and above all that the law imposes. If it is not 
true, the contrary must be true, and the doctrine of 
total depravity can not be assailed from that quarter. 



32 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

But even if their doctrine is true — if it can not be 
made available to our salvation — we should beware 
that we do not make a false and dangerous use of 
it, by resting more weight upon it than it is able to 
bear. It is, therefore, of great importance that we 
should know what it is, what it is worth, and what it 
can do for us. An erroneous estimate of its nature, 
use, and value, may be an occasion of fatal and ruin- 
ous mistakes. We inquire, then, Is this principle 
true spiritual life ? If it is, we stand in no need of 
what we call conversion, but only of growth in grace. 
If it is that eternal life which the gospel reveals, 
what need is there to come to Christ that we may 
have life ? And why exhort sinners to repent and be 
converted, seeing we are converted already, or do not 
need conversion? Is this principle the love of God, 
or does it implant the love of God in the heart? If 
this is what is meant, all is right with us. -We have 
by nature the love of God in the soul. And all men 
love God if their doctrine is true. But both Scripture 
and facts testify the contrary. Again, Does this 
grace or power work in us repentance toward God? 
If it does, all men are under pardon ; for pardon is 
secured to all that repent. And I would ask further, 
Is this ability, or spiritual principle, or whatever we 
may properly term it, the Spirit of Christ? Those 
in whom the Spirit of Christ dwells, are the children 
of God, and, consequently, the heirs of God. If it 
is not the Spirit of Christ, they are none of His, but 
are declared to be reprobates. Does it give us a 
hearty good-will to serve God in newness of life ? 
Does it make us new creatures ? If it does none of 
these things for us, it is no easy matter to see what 
its office is, or what is its nature, or wherein we are 



OF TOTAL DEPRAVITY. 33 

the better of it. The advocates of this doctrine, I 
believe, hold that, notwithstanding this ability pos- 
sessed by all men, we must have wrought in us by the 
Holy Spirit a w T ork of grace, without which w T e can not 
be saved. But the Holy Spirit is fully able to work in 
us any change and every grace w^e need, or possibly 
can need, as in any respect essential to our salvation, 
even though we are utterly destitute of any thing that 
is good. And if we can not be saved without a work 
of the Divine Spirit when w T e have this natural ability, 
and may be saved by the power of the Holy Ghost 
when we are totally depraved, how do we derive any 
advantage from it ? I have given a good deal of re- 
flection to this subject, and, so far as I can see, the legit- 
imate tendency of this scheme is, that it increases our 
responsibilities without giving us an}' additional ability 
to meet them. And besides this, it is calculated to 
foster in the heart of the unconverted sinner a spirit 
of self-deception, by inducing the belief that his condi- 
tion before God is better than what it really is; and 
all the while, as we have shown, the doctrine can not 
be reconciled with the obvious meaning of a great 
number of scriptures. 

It is quite a possible thing for a man to mistake the 
workings of the natural conscience for the operations 
of the Holy Spirit, And this misapprehension, I sus- 
pect, has contributed a great deal to uphold the errone- 
ous opinion that there is in man naturally a radical 
principle of spiritual goodness. It will not be denied 
that w^e may be misled by ignorance ; and very few, I 
suppose, w T ould doubt that we are liable to be deceived 
by the mere excitements of our moral sensations ; but 
many will think it almost impossible that we may be 
misguided by conscience. But this is an error ; for 



64: CHURCH-MEMBERS HAND-BOOK OF THEOLOGY. 

"the mind and conscience are defiled." Perhaps con- 
science is the best faculty of the soul in our present 
condition, as regards matters of right and wrong; 
but if it is not enlightened, and subdued into con- 
formity with the word of God, it is not only an un- 
safe, but a dangerous guide in spiritual things. It is 
often false as an instructor; it is inefficient as a mon- 
itor, and unfaithful as a reprover. Look at the 
heathen nations in their absurd and superstitious rites 
and observances of their idolatrous worship, in which 
they are as conscientiously sincere as the most de- 
voted Christian is in his obedience to the laws of Jesus 
Christ, and surely if a man is not as blind as they 
are he will see that conscience is not to be trusted to 
lead us to heaven. The parent burns the infant child 
as a sacrifice to procure the favor of his god. If this 
is right, certainly the Bible is not good authority; if 
it is not right, then the dictates of conscience are no 
certain criteria by which to judge of things spiritual. 
But without referring to the heathen, even in the land 
of Bibles there are superstitions as irrational, and ab- 
surd, and as sinful as those of the heathen. The cere- 
monies and observances enjoined by ecclesiastical des- 
potism are respected by the conscience of the deluded 
votary, as much as the prescrij^tions of the Bible are by 
the enlightened believer. Paul acted as much in obe- 
dience to the authoritjr of his conscience when perse- 
cuting the saints, as when he was preaching Jesus 
Christ and Him crucified to the Corinthians. If con- 
science does not lead according to the light of the 
Divine word, it is blind; and the consequences may 
be as fatal to follow a blind conscience, as to follow 
a blind Pharisee, or any other blind guide. He that 
knows his duty, and will not do it, is without excuse; 



OF TGTAL DEPRAVITY. 35 

and to plead ignorance, when we possess the means 
of knowing the truth ; is to plead one sin in excuse 
for another. The God with whom we have to do 
will take no excuse. 

Before I leave this subject I wish to present it to 
your reflection, very briefly, in two general points of 
view, leaving it with you to make the special appli- 
cations. 

The first is this : If we institute a comparison (I 
might say a contrast) between the holy and spiritual 
nature of the Divine Law on the one hand, and the 
exercises and inworkings of the natural heart of man 
on the other hand, it will clearly appear that in every 
respect in which a comparison can be made, the un- 
sanctified heart is averse to the spiritual purity of 
the obligation which the law imposes. When all the 
thoughts and imaginations of the unregenerate heart 
are set in the strong light of the perfect spiritual 
holiness of God's law it will be found that in that 
heart "there is no good thing" — nothing that the law 
will approve. I can not now go into the details of 
this argument, but if the position is defensible, as I 
have no doubt it is, it precludes the necessity of any 
other evidence, either to prove or disprove the total 
corruption of man's moral nature. 

The other general principle to which I referred 
above is the treatment which the gospel receives when 
proposed to the natural mind of man. Notwithstand- 
ing man's ruined state — notwithstanding his desperate 
necessity, exposed to inevitable perdition — yet, when 
the gospel in its infinite worth and its unbounded free- 
ness is presented to the sinner's acceptance, it is will- 
fully and persistently rejected by the natural heart. 
This is depravity with manifold aggravation. 



36 church-members' hand-book of theology* 

These two categories comprehend all existing rela- 
tions between God and man; and in respect to both, 
the facts demonstrate that there is in the unrenewed 
heart an inveterate opposition to both. In the inves- 
tigation and discussion of this doctrine, we have no 
need, in strictness, to go oat of the domain of law; 
but the open refusal of salvation by free grace, every- 
where illustrated by facts, exhibits the truth in a most 
obvious and prominent light. 



OF THE HUMAN WILL. 37 



CHAPTEE III. 



OF THE HUMAN WILL. 



We shall attempt now to treat a little on the subject 
of the will of man. 

There has been a world-full of discussion lavished 
upon this subject; and many wise and good things 
have been said on it ; and also some very foolish and 
absurd notions have been put forth, as dogmatically 
as if they had been legitimate deductions from self-ev- 
ident principles. I do not pretend to be able to throw 
any additional light upon the subject beyond what 
has been done by writers on moral science, or to ex- 
hibit it to the greater advantage of the reader; but I 
do hope to avoid nonsense and gross absurdity. 

The will is said to be " the power of choosing." I 
shall not undertake to give a better definition ; but I 
will lay down one or two propositions which I would 
have the reader to keep constantly in view. 

And first, Every responsible action of man is per- 
formed in obedience to his will. I will omit the obvi- 
ous corollary. Secondly, I will state that in every 
case where the will of man is not in perfect unison and 
agreement with the revealed will of God, it is sinful — 
man's will is rebellious. And this is as true in its ap- 
plication to what we believe, as it is to what we do. 

We will proceed in our inquiries according to the 
definition of will as given by writers on moral science, 



3S church-members' hand-book of theology. 

and which we have stated above, to wit, that the will 
is the power of choosing. It is that faculty of the 
mind by which we determine or decide what we will 
do in any given case. One man wills, or chooses, to 
be a farmer; another chooses, or wills, to be a mer- 
chant. Sometimes a man is undecided in his mind as 
to what course he will pursue ; for instance, he can not 
determine whether he will go abroad the next day, or 
stay at home. There may be a reason why he would 
choose to remain at home; and there may also be a 
reason why he would choose to attend to some business 
abroad. His will is, as it were, on a balance; but 
some consideration presents itself to the mind which 
induces him to determine one way or the other; and 
thus it is his will to do that which he does. This is 
plain to every mind. 

It is very common for a man to say that in a par- 
ticular instance he acted " against his will" It is law- 
ful to use such language, because his meaning is al- 
ways understood; but, in strict propriety of language, 
it is not true. He acted against his inclination ; — he de- 
sired to act otherwise, but he knows that some more 
important or urgent consideration induced him to 
choose, or will, to perform the action. We find this 
mode of expression used by inspired writers. All that 
is necessary here, is simply to note that there is a 
distinction between the inclination or desire, and the 
will. The desire and the will are often in agreement, 
but sometimes they are in opposition to each other. 

It is proper to remark also that we are always re- 
sponsible for whatever consequences may result from 
the choice we make, especially if we know, or have 
the means of knowing, that such consequences will or 
may ensue. If a man voluntarily exposes himself to 



OF THE HUMAN WILL. 39 

the contagion of small-pox, he is himself responsible 
for the disease or death that may follow. And if a 
man chooses to follow a sinful course of life, whatever 
he may suffer in consequence is just. 

The question, Is the human will free ? has long 
been a subject of dispute. I do not claim to under- 
stand metaphysical science well enough to put the 
question to rest, but will submit my own views as 
clearly as I well can. But permit me, by the way, to 
make one incidental remark : I feel perfectly sure in 
my own mind that if God had no will, or had never 
revealed any part of His will to man, there never 
would have been one-half the controversy on the sub- 
ject that has been. I admit that it is this considera- 
tion which gives the subject its greatest importance ; 
but if there was no disposition in man to subordinate 
the will of God to his own will, many of those specu- 
lations about force, and contingency, and necessity, 
and irresponsibility, that have been advanced as sound 
philosophy, would never have been thought of. It is 
only when the question is viewed in reference to our 
more immediate relations to God that men differ so 
widely. When men speak of free-ic ill, in what sense 
are we to understand the term free ? If it is meant 
that the will of man is never forced in its decisions by 
physical power, there certainly ought to be no debate. 
I believe that to.be morally impossible. And yet 
much of what has been urged in favor of the freedom 
of the will has been directed against this very princi- 
ple. If the will is not free in this respect, it is not 
will; and to spend labor in proving this freedom of 
the will, is no better than laboring to prove that a 
circle is round. If a figure is not round it is not a cir 
cle, for roundness is an essential property of a circle. 
4 



40 CHURCH MEMBERS' HAND-BOOK OF THEOLOGY. 

And I believe that freedom is equally an essential 
property of the will ; so that if it is not free, it is not 
will. I think it may be rationally doubted whether 
the will is, in fact, an object of physical power. 

On the other hand, let us suppose that the moral na- 
ture of man was so constituted that no reasons, or 
motives, or influences, could have any effect on his 
mind to direct his will in deciding what he would do; 
so that his will (so to speak) was incapable of being 
moved or determined in any direction. If so, then he 
would have no will; no such faculty as the will would 
exist in the human mind. But we know that man is 
not thus constituted. We know that we constantly 
choose one thing in preference to another, while at the 
same time we are perfectly at liberty to choose either. 

It is evident, therefore, that the will is under some 
kind of government — that it is under control, or is 
guided by some consideration ; and it is equally evi- 
dent, that it is not under a government of physical 
force — it is not under a government of compulsion. 
But the law that governs the will, is a law of moral 
influence; and when we choose to do a bad action, it 
is because we choose to yield to a bad moral influ- 
ence. One thing is certain, the determinations of the 
will are always to be referred to moral law. By 
moral law they will be judged. 

I shall here lay down a postulate : The will is al- 
ways governed by one and the same law. This may 
be thought by some to be a new idea ; but if the posi- 
tion is not true, 1 solicit refutation. And if this is a 
sound principle, and we can ascertain with certainty, 
in any case, what that law or principle is that influ- 
ences the will to a decision, we then know by what 
law the will is governed in all cases. Now there can 



OF THE HUMAN WILL. 41 

be no difficulty in ascertaining this in many instances. 
We know there are motives which influence our minds 
to choose that which we do choose. We may say 
the motive governs the will ; but we may be influenced 
by a motive which is good in itself, to do an act that 
is very wrong. 

We will illustrate by a figure the principle we as- 
sume : A man walks out a distance from bis habita- 
tion, and, casting his eyes upward, discovers a storm 
rising, which will certainly overtake him before he 
can reach home ; but there is a vacant house not very 
distant, and he hastens to it. Is he, or any one 
else, at a loss to know what induced him to go thither? 
The storm increases in violence and becomes quite 
fearful, and he chooses or wills to remain under his 
shelter. No one can fail to see the motive which gov- 
erns his will. But the tempest becomes furious, and 
the house begins to shake and crack — he immediately 
leaps out into the open, field, and the house is dashed 
to the ground. Although a moment before it was his 
will to remain in his place of retreat, his will is 
changed in a trice. No man of common sense can fail 
to see that in all these movements his will was gov- 
erned by motives, and by nothing else. On no other 
view of the subject can it be strictly proper and true 
to say that the will is free. And every man when he 
decides or chooses to adopt some particular course of 
proceeding, or chooses to perform any particular ac- 
tion, is conscious of a reason or motive that deter- 
mines his choice — a motive which was quite apparent 
to his mind at the time. And it is folly and irrational 
to go beyond the motive, in search of a power or fac- 
ulty of the mind which governs or controls the will 
independently of motives. 



42 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

So much lias been said on the supposed connection 
between the Divine decrees and the freedom of the 
human will, that I reckon I should hardly be excused 
if I were to be entirely silent on the subject. But if it 
were not for a particular reason, I would treat the 
question with the neglect that I think it deserves. 
And the reader would probably not feel quite satisfied 
to be respectfully referred to what wiser men have 
said on the subject. 

It has been contended that if God has decreed any 
event which involves the actions of men, those actions 
are necessitated by the decree ; and the inference is, 
that in such cases, men can not justly be held respon- 
sible for their acts. There have been men who have 
boldly affirmed that such decrees make God the au- 
thor of sin. There are others who believe that all 
events in the universe were decreed — fore-ordained 
by the Creator before the foundation of the world — 
and hence they infer that all -the actions of men are 
performed under an absolute and inexorable necessity. 
Thus, to refer to a very common example, it is held 
that God decreed the fall of Adam, and, therefore, he 
sinned by necessity; he was obliged to sin, and could 
not help it. I say he sinned, speaking on the supposi- 
tion that his disobedience was sin. 

On the main question of the perfect freedom of 
man's will, considered in regard to God's infallible de- 
cree, there is a profound and unapproachable secret. 
And unless I were able to bring this secret to the open 
light of our understanding, it would probably be im- 
possible to satisfy curiosity. And where knowledge 
is impossible, it is not wise to waste inquiry; and 
speculation is presumptuous. In many things God's 
judgments are unsearchable, and His ways past find- 



OF THE HUMAN WILL. 43 

ing out. This should rebuke our arrogant specula- 
tions, and teach us to confine our inquiries within the 
bounds of attainable knowledge. 

Any attempt to show, by reasoning, that man is not 
responsible for his voluntary actions, is not only vain, 
but impious. That point is settled by the express tes- 
timony of God's word; and an attempt to establish 
the contrary, is virtually an attempt to prove that 
God's word is false. 

We will now submit a few thoughts on the subject, 
keeping within the limits of legitimate inquiry. And 
we ask, Does a Divine decree necessitate the actions 
of men ? If we look at this question in the light of 
cause and effect, we are baffled at the first step. When • 
we see an effect, and would seek for the cause which 
produced it, we always expect to find a certain ap- 
propriate connection between the cause and effect, 
which will show the relation. But in this case we look 
in vain. !No such relation can be discovered, because 
there is no such visible connection as would lead to 
the discovery. I think it may be rationally doubted 
whether such decree, considered merely in itself, can 
be a cause. There must be a power to execute the 
decree before any effect can be produced. Every ef- 
fect is the result of power — and of power in exercise. 
Hence we are not to look to the decree, but to the 
power which carries the decree into accomplishment. 
If we go to a Divine decree to find the cause of our 
voluntary actions, we go immeasurably above all visible 
operative causes ; but even then we do not go high 
enough to compass the argument. For does God will 
an event because He has decreed it? or does He de- 
cree the event because it is His will that it shall 
transpire? The answer is too prominent to demand 



44 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

reflection. Whether a Divine decree necessitates the 
voluntary actions of men or not, there is no man who 
can see any such connection between them as will 
make those actions a necessity. And it is not rational 
to affirm such a connection when we can not discover 
it. 

But it is alleged that if God decrees an event, the 
event is made certain ; for we can not counteract his 
decrees. We admit that if God decrees that any 
particular event shall infallibly come to pass, that 
event is certain — absolutely certain. But the decree 
does not make it certain ; it would be just as certain 
if there was no decree. Moreover, the certainty of the 
event has no influence over man's will ; at least no 
one can see any necessary connection between the 
certainty of the event and the determinations of man's 
will. When any man can demonstrate that a Divine 
decree forced him to choose to commit a sinful act, he 
shall be at liberty to use it in argument. The object 
of those who reason from the decrees, seems to be to 
invalidate the doctrine of free-agency ; but they can 
never succeed on their scheme. To give their views 
even the appearance of plausibility, they have to 
identify poiver and decree, but they are far from being 
the same. There is no power, either physical or 
moral, in a decree; and, therefore, a decree can have 
no effect on the human will. That the will is under 
some kind of government, is too manifest to admit of 
doubt ; but the government to which it is subject 
must be moral influence, for it is not accessible to 
physical force. Let us suppose two travelers — one a 
theological philosopher, the other a plain man, but 
little acquainted with scientific speculations: Their 
road leads through a country where water is scarce, 



OF THE HUMAN WILL. 45 

and they become very thirsty; at length they come to 
a spring of excellent water. The learned metaphy- 
sician dips his vessel, and says : "It was uncondition- 
ally decreed before the foundation of the world that I 
should drink this good water, and, therefore, under 
the force of that inevitable decree, I choose to drink 
it" — and then drinks. Our common man likewise dips 
his vessel, and says : " I am suffering with thirst, my 
appetite craves this good water, and influenced by the 
benefit and gratification I expect to derive from it, I 
choose to drink." Then, turning to his philosophical 
companion, says: "And I believe it was for the same 
reason, and influenced by the same motives, that you 
chose to drink ; and that supposed decree to which you 
referred had nothing to do with your choice; for, as 
to any thing you knew, it might have been decreed 
that you should not drink." Which of these two is 
the better philosopher? They were both free — they 
both had full liberty to drink, and they both had 
physical power to abstain, and the will of both. was 
governed by the same law. I shall soon have occa- 
sion to consider this subject briefly in another point 
of view. 

But before 1 do this, it is necessary to notice a 
ground that is taken by some over-zealous advocates 
of free-agency. So far as it respects the doctrine that 
the human will is free — free from any force or con- 
straining power that necessitates the actions of men — 
I have no controversy with them. I hold the doctrine 
as firmly as they do. as my preceding remarks upon 
the subject sufficiently verity. But I sec no necessity 
for attempting to establish a free-agency that goes be- 
yond the will; neither do 1 believe the tiling is possible. 
A simple statement of their doctrine is about this: That 



46 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

man's will is free, and that he possesses in himself a 
power over his will to govern or direct its determina- 
tions. 

I believe they do not attempt to define this power, 
or to explain its nature, but it is certain that they 
mean something more than that influence which mo- 
tives of any kind are naturally calculated to exert on 
the will ; for if this were all they mean, they would 
have no use for it in the argument. It may not be 
very easy to deal with such a subtle notion by mere 
abstract reasoning ; but I think there is no necessity 
for any thing more than a mere practical application of 
the doctrine to any given case. If the idea were con- 
fined to the illiterate and ignorant class of mankind, I 
would not deign to notice it; but when it is gravely set 
forth by men of reputation for learning and theolog- 
ical wisdom, it seems to require some attention. The 
idea is a mere assumption, unsupported by reason, or 
facts, or any principle recognized by the acknowledged 
maxims of science. The assumption is this: That man 
is possessed of a free-will, and also that he possesses 
within himself an independent power over his will, 
so that his will is subject to the dictation of this sup- 
posed power. If you adopt this theory, it behooves 
you to show at least that it is consistent with itself. 
You must show how it is that the will is free, and yet 
subject to the arbitrary dictate of an independent 
power — a power that lies deeper in the human mind 
than the will itself does. If we possess such a power, 
and it is not called forth into exercise, to direct the 
decisions of the will, it is not power at all, in any 
proper sense of the word. But the actual exercise of 
this power is admitted, and contended for; for, on 
any other condition, it would not be assumed. Let 



OF THE HUMAN WILL. 47 

ns follow in the direction of this argument and see 
the consequences — taking Lot, the nephew of Abra- 
ham, as an example. 

Lot chdse, or willed, to go to Sodom ; it was his will 
to go there. He was at liberty to go or to do other- 
wise ; and he was as able to remain where he was as 
to go ; but it was his free-will to go. We will call this 
his first will, because it was in compliance with this 
will that he went. Isow it is assumed that he bad a 
power over this will, or this act of his will, by the ex- 
ercise of which he would have been able to will (or 
choose) differently. This power we will call (for dis- 
tinction's sake) the first power. And (according to 
this theory) Lot could have exercised it over his will, 
and determined not to go. But as he did not, it must 
have been because he would not. This would require 
a second will back of the power — a will to exercise the 
power; for if he had no will to exercise the power, it 
would be the same as if he had not the power. And 
further, this would necessitate a second poicer to govern 
this second will ; and a third will to exercise the second 
power ; and so on forever, for there could be no end to 
these alternations. And thus Lot would be like a 
horse working a tread-mill — always stepping on his 
inclined plane, and yet never move from his first po- 
sition. But the mind instinctively recoils from the 
pursuit of this fleeting abstraction. And the man 
who adopts this theory would employ himself as ration- 
ally and as successfully in running to outgo his shadow. 
Regardless of the sneer that the above undignified 
and tabular form of presenting the argument may 
provoke, I desired if I could to make it plain to the 
minds of plain readers. And intending no injustice to 
the reputation of those who have advanced this ground- 



48 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

less doctrine of the human will, I shall not withhold 
the opinion that it is resorted to as a mere hiding- 
place to escape the consequences of arguments too 
palpable and forcible to be resisted. And whether 
Lot did right or wrong, and whether he icilled right or 
wrong, we know what it was that governed his will: 
" And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain 
of Jordan, that it was well watered every-where, before 
the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the 
garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, as thou 
comest unto Zoar. Then Lot chose him all the plain 
of Jordan." (Gen. xiii. 10, 11.) This is very plain phi- 
losophy, and shows by what means the human will is 
governed in all cases. 

I have one more idea to offer in relation to this 
power over the will, and then I will proceed to the last 
point of view in which I design to consider the subject 
of the human will. I will not detain the reader long- 
in this place. If I were as conversant with the writ- 
ings of moral philosophers as I could wish to be, I 
think it probable that I could appeal to the authority 
of great names in what I shall now advance; but the 
extent of my reading is so limited, that I can not avail 
myself of such support as I might derive from such a 
privilege. 

I invite your attention to the relative order of will 
and power, as exercised in voluntary actions. Does a 
man will-, that is, choose, or resolve, to perform any act 
under the influence of that power by which he per- 
forms it? In every instance the will, or determination 
of the mind, to do any act precedes the exertion of the 
power by which it is done. To place a power over the 
will, or, which is the same thing, to make the will sub- 
ject to power, is to invert the established order of 



OF THE HUMAN WILL. 49 

nature. Power is necessarily exercised in obedience to 
will, or it is exercised at random. I will not dwell 
on this argument; but the principle upon which the 
argument is founded is utterly subversive of the the- 
ory that man possesses in himself a power over his 
will. 

But there is a point of view in which the subject of 
free -agency assumes an importance that challenges the 
close and candid consideration of every man. And 
now, in the last place, I design to take a little notice 
of the subject in that most important respect. It is in 
a practical view that free-agency involves considera- 
tions of the most serious and responsible nature. That 
every man acts freely in obedience to the dictates of 
his own will, without any constraint or coercive force 
exerted upon his will, is so evident that there ought 
never to have been any question on the subject. It is 
known by consciousness. Every man knows that he is 
a free-agent, and acts freely according to his own will, 
or choice, and this is decisive, and properly precludes 
all controversy. But although man is not a mere 
machine, which of necessity moves, just as it is moved 
by force, yet it leaves the question open, whether he is 
not the willing slave of his unholy affections and 
carnal worldly propensities. I speak of the natural 
man. AVe are not driven by physical force in the ways 
of sin, but we are allured by temptations and entice- 
ments which Ave have not the moral strength to resist. 
The things of this world are so congenial to the fleshly 
appetites, the pride and selfishness of men's hearts, 
that they yield a willing submission to these influences. 
The love of this world is dominant in the human heart, 
and the love of God, not being there to counteract it, 
sin reigns, and holds an easy control of the will ; so 



50 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

that man, though free, is led captive by Satan at his 
will. This is a most deplorable bondage ; for, being 
free-agents, we are subject to all the momentous re- 
sponsibilities of free-agency, and justly liable to the 
fearfnl consequences of our voluntary sins, and yet we 
have not the moral heroism to fight successfully against 
the lusts of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride 
of life. And the end of these things is death. What 
we need is the Spirit of grace to deliver the will from 
its slavish subjection to the unholy inclinations of our 
carnal hearts. 



REGENERATION. 51 



CHAPTEE IY. 



REGENERATION. 



Conversion, regeneration, being born again, and 
other terms, are used indifferently to express the same 
thing. In the Scriptures, I believe the word conver- 
sion, or convert, is generally applied to that change of 
practical life which follows regeneration ; but preach- 
ers and writers use it constantly as synonymous with 
regeneration ; and I shallnot interfere with the prac- 
tice. 

That a radical change wrought in the heart and 
mind of the natural man is essential to salvation, is a 
doctrine generally received and taught by the pro- 
fessed followers of Christ; and if there are any who 
teach or believe otherwise, it is safe to infer that they 
have never themselves been the subjects of such change ; 
and if they do not renounce their error before, they 
will be convinced, when " he that is filthy will be 
filthy still." It is so plainly taught in the word of 
God, that to deny it implies a total want of reverence 
for Divine authority. Of this change we now design 
to discourse. 

In reading the Old Testament (as we usually call 
it) we discover that God made two great promises to 
us as sinners; which two promises comprehend all that 
pertains to the whole plan and work of our salvation 
from the beginning to the end. The first promise. is, 



52 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

that He would give us His Sou to be our Eedeeraer. 
This Gift respects us as condemned sinners, under the 
curse of His law. This Gift was an absolute necessity, 
for without it our salvation was impossible. I will 
not detain you here by exhibiting the proofs. I take 
it for granted that you admit it. This promise has 
been fulfilled. This great Gift has been bestowed. And 
now it is not only useless, but it is highly sinful in us 
to attempt to do any thing in order to remove the 
curse and condemnation from us, for Christ " has re- 
deemed us from the curse of the law." And it would 
be casting the utmost contempt upon the perfect atone- 
ment made by Him, to do any thing by way of mak- 
ing satisfaction for our sins. The Son of God has 
done this work, and there was none but Him in heaven 
or earth that could do it. 

The other great Gift which the Lord promised was 
the Holy Spirit as a Sanctifier, to give us spiritual 
life, to enlighten our minds, and, in a word, -to make 
us new creatures. The necessity of this Gift, in order 
to our salvation, was as absolute and imperative as 
the other. There was no salvation without it, and 
there was none else but the Holy Spirit that could 
do it. The work of redemption or atonement is now 
a finished work, and was performed by Jesus Christ 
for us. But the work of regeneration is not a finished 
work, nor is it even begun in the natural man. This 
work is a work wrought within us by the Divine 
Spirit, and this work is now the subject of our present 
consideration. 

I will state, in the first place, that there is no holi- 
ness in any created being but that which was given 
to it by the Holy Spirit. And I state further, that 
man — the natural man — is totally destitute of holiness. 



REGENERATION. 53 

I employ the term holiness, not in a typical or relative 
sense, but in its strict and proper meaning. In its 
proper use, the word can not be applied to any but 
an intelligent nature. We must not think of holiness 
as a merely negative idea, implying simply sinlessness. 
In such meaning as this, it might be applied to a 
tree or to a block of marble. But it can have no just 
application but to intelligent creatures. No other can 
be a subject of holiness. Whatever created thing is 
not in its own nature capable of being sinful, can not 
be a subject of holiness. Holiness is a living, active, 
and operative principle ; and wherever it exists, there 
is spiritual life. Man. in a stale of nature, is said to 
be dead in sin: because he is utterly destitute of holi- 
ness, and, therefore, destitute of spiritual life. And as 
there can be no spiritual life without holiness, it fol- 
lows of necessity that there can be no spiritual happi- 
ness. Hence it is said, " Without holiness no man 
shall see the Lord." There must be a similarity of 
character — a oneness of moral nature between us and 
a holy God, or we can have no communion with Him. 
There would be no reciprocal affection, but a natural 
inherent aversion. And this aversion must be mutual, 
for God can not do otherwise than hate the sinfulness 
of our nature; and we, without the spirit of holiness, 
can not do otherwise than hate the holiness of the 
Divine nature. Hence we see the natural man's great 
and imperative necessity. It is an effectual change of 
his moral nature. But nothing can change its own 
nature ; therefore man can not meet this necessity. 
And as all holiness is derived from the Holy Spirit, 
there is none that can do this but He only. 

That change, therefore, w T hich must be produced in 
the soul, is the work of God ; and hence it is ex- 



54 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

pressed in terms that necessarily require the power of 
a Divine agent. It is called a creation — " created 
anew." Creation is a work peculiar to God, and is 
frequently referred to in the Scriptures as one of the 
strongest proofs of His infinite power. We are said 
to be " begotten of God/' and " born of the Spirit." 
Previous to this change we are the " children of 
wrath" — " the children of disobedience." Indeed, we 
are said to be "the children of the devil." Subse- 
quently we are called "the children of God " — "obedi- 
ent children." A greater contrast than this is hardly 
conceivable. While in a state of nature we are " dead 
in trespasses and sins;" but in this change we are 
"quickened" — "made alive." It is the Spirit that 
" giveth life." To give life, is an act which belongs 
exclusively to Divine power. God gives us of His 
Spirit, and this spirit of holiness which God gives us 
is said to be the Spirit of Christ. By it, we are made 
one with Christ in spirit ; and this is that bond of 
union by which we are united to Him. And hence 
Christ is said to dwell in us by His Spirit. "Hereby 
know we that we dwell in Him, and He in us, because 
He hath given us of His Spirit." Until we have the 
spirit of life, we are blind and can not see spiritual 
things, because they are spiritually discerned ; but 
being made alive, we see the things of God. All that 
we have, and all that we are in ourselves, we derive 
from Adam ; but the spirit of life we derive from God 
through Jesus Christ. And until the Spirit of life is 
given to us, we are wholly destitute of the spirit of 
holiness, and can not do any thing that is spiritually 
good. 

The Holy Spirit does not give us any new faculty 
of the soul, but so sanctifies those which we possess 



REGENERATION. 55 

in our present constitution, as to give them a new 
character, and also a new direction to their exercises. 
The manner or mode in which the Divine Spirit op- 
erates on the mind in effecting this, change, is beyond 
our comprehension ; as much so as the manner in 
which He produced light out of the original darkness. 
TTe can not see the wind, but we may see its effects, 
and the results of its powerful operation. 

There are great diversities in the exercises of the 
mind in different persons, when first quickened by the 
Spirit ; and those differences will often continue in 
some degree throughout the whole course of their re- 
ligious life. But there are certain characteristics of 
the operations of the Spirit, which are uniform and 
pertain to all. The differences are circumstantial, 
and to account for them in a treatise on the subject 
would be impracticable, if not impossible. In partic- 
ular instances much depends (as I think) on nervous 
temperament — much on the degree of general knowl- 
edge previously acquired, in respect to the law of God 
and the way of salvation as revealed in the gospel ; 
perhaps a good deal depends on the religious charac- 
ter of our ordinary companionship, and much on the 
instructive nature of the preaching we are most ac- 
customed to hear, and perhaps not a little on the com- 
parative wickedness of our previous habits of life. 
And we shall not undertake to trace in detail the ex- 
ercises of the mind of a newly-awakened sinner, in a 
systematic order, but merely notice some things on 
the subject. Our remarks will be partly doctrinal 
and partly experimental. 

The mind of man is naturally affected by the char- 
acter of the objects which it contemplates, and by 
the particular relation which they sustain to hiim 



56 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

All experience proves this, with respect to things both 
natural and divine. When, therefore, spiritual life is 
implanted in the soul, he can begin to discern spiritual 
things, though he is but an infant in spiritual capac- 
ity. Now, man is the creature of law. He was cre- 
ated at first subject to law, and he remains, and ever 
will remain, subject to law. And in Bible lands he is 
taught from infancy to understand something of God 
as his rightful sovereign ; and of the nature of that 
law which He has ordained for man's observance. 
And we are all conscious of the fact of our being trans- 
gressors; and we have some idea of that penalty which 
the law will inflict upon us in the world to come. Of 
all this we have some rational knowledge while yet in 
a state of nature. Some have a greater degree and 
some a less of this knowledge, before the Divine Spirit 
has given us spiritual life. And this knowledge ought 
to induce us to love God and to repent of our sins, but 
it never does it ; for the law can not give life. Thus 
every man has a ration al understanding that through 
the law is the ministration of death. Consequently, 
when the eyes of the understanding are opened, we 
naturally turn our thoughts to the law, and to our 
sins, and to the dangerous state we are in, as exposed 
to the dreadful penalty due to our sins. Where there 
is spiritual life, there is also spiritual sensation. And 
when we discover our true condition, though only in a 
partial degree, we can not but feel concerned for the 
event. For the matter is of such immense impor- 
tance, that to be entirely indifferent about the conse 
quences is a moral impossibility. At the same time 
our relations to the things of this world are so inti- 
mate, so numerous, and so various ; and the duties 
arising out of these relations are so manifold, and often 



REGENERATION. 57 

so urgent, that the mind will be more or less diverted 
from the consideration of spiritual and eternal things, 
and employed upon the things of time and sense. But 
in every thing that God does He always has a fixed 
and specific design, which He intends eventually to 
accomplish. And when He gives the Spirit of life to 
a dead sinner, He will maintain that life; for he will 
not be frustrated or defeated in the execution of his 
purposes. He will be glorified in His work, and will 
not begin to build when He is not both able and will- 
ing to finish. If a sinner thus brought to his senses 
should resolve to fight against it, and endeavor to put 
away thoughts of his condition, because such thoughts 
are troublesome to him. and disturb his peace, he 
would not be able to succeed. Our physical constitu- 
tion is such that we can not take burning coals in our 
hands without feeling the effects of the fire. And spir- 
itual life is such that. a man possessing it can not re- 
main very long at rest when he is conscious that the 
wrath of God hangs over him. And knowing that he 
is a subject of law, and that the language of the law 
is u Do and live;" and, as he has always expected to 
live by this doing, he sets himself about the work, and 
perhaps will " do many things" which are enjoined 
upon him ; but sooner or later he will find that to "do 
all things which are written in the book of the law" 
is a task beyond the achievement of his moral powers. 
Meantime he too much overlooks the important fact 
that it is now too late to u do arid live." He is con- 
demned already, and nothing that he can do, nor all 
that he can do, will ever remove that condemnation. 
The dreadful sentence of death has already gone out 
against him for sins already committed ; and what- 
ever he may do, or can do, it is impossible for him 



58 CHURCH members' hand-book of theology. 

to undo what be has done. Being enlightened by the 
Spirit, he will discover something of the sinfulness of 
his own heart, and of the holiness and justice of the 
law ; and that he is too- weak to render that perfect 
obedience to the law which it requires, and is there- 
fore daily increasing the measure of his guilt. We 
must find deliverance somewhere else, or certain de- 
struction must ensue. Satisfaction for past sins can 
not be made by present duties, and beyond what duty 
requires it is impossible for us to go. The uncon- 
verted sinner obeys the law — so far as he obeys at 
all — from a slavish dread of its penalty; for he has 
no love of holiness for its own sake. And the newly 
awakened sinner seeks to obey and serve the Lord, 
hoping thereby to make himself a Christian. Both 
labor in vain. But the soul enlightened by the Holy 
Spirit will obtain clearer views of the law, in pro- 
portion to the increasing degrees of light that he ac- 
quires. And the more he contemplates the law, the 
more he will see the holiness of its nature and the 
extent and sacredness of its obligation ; and, at the 
same time, by the same light, he will discover more 
clearly the imperfections of his obedience. And thus 
be learns, indeed, that the " commandment is exceed- 
ing broad ; " and in due time he will find that it is 
in vain to hope that he can ever attain to a right- 
eousness that will satisfy a law which will approve 
of nothing short of perfect holiness. All the while 
Christ is set forth before him as a "propitiation 
through faith in His blood ; " and why does he not 
look to him and obtain remission of sins? I shall 
not say that it is easy to answer this question. The 
soul is still oppressed with a burden of guilt; and 
he is still verv much in the dark, and does not un- 



REGENERATION. 59 

derstand the way of a sinner's acceptance with God. 
He does not see how God can love so unholy a creat- 
ure as he is. His mind is so much engrossed with 
thoughts of his present sinfulness, and reflection upon 
his past sins — and a condemning law, ever present, 
denouncing judgment against him — that he can not 
direct his thoughts much to the only remedy for his 
disease. And if his mind is turned in that direction, 
a sense of his unworthiness, and a want of what he 
thinks is a necessary preparation or qualification for 
obtaining mercy, keeps him in a state of despondence. 
What the sinner needs now is faith in Christ. 

t 



60 church-members' hand-book of theology. 



CHAPTEE Y. 



the doctrine of faith. 



Proceeding in the train of reflection which we have 
been pursuing, we design now to discuss the subject 
of faith. It is only necessary to read the New Testa- 
ment with a little attention to discover the great im- 
portance of faith ; hence every Christian and every 
man should endeavor to obtain a clear and correct 
understanding of the subject. 

Much has been said of the order in respect to time 
in which the graces of the Spirit are given to us ; 
some contending that repentance must precede faith, 
and others insisting that faith precedes repentance. 
Perhaps I may not have devoted as much attention 
to this question as I ought. But according to my 
theory (if you will bear with the expression) the 
question is of no very great importance. The light 
in which I view the subject is this : All those exer- 
cises of the mind which have been denominated graces 
of the Spirit, are the fruits of the Spirit. And when 
the spirit of life is given to us, it includes poten- 
tially every grace of the Spirit. And the order in 
which these graces (as we call them) are brought 
into exercise, may depend, in some measure, upon cir- 
cumstances. Slavish fears of the wrath to come are 
natural, and not spiritual; and may operate as pow- 
erfully upon the unregenerate soul as upon one who 



THE DOCTRINE OF FAITH. 61 

is really under the operation of the Spirit of grace. 
But these, whether in the believer or in the unbeliever, 
are sinful ; and it is a great pity they should ever be 
mistaken for conversion. When the mind is enlight- 
ened by the Spirit, we instinctively look at our sins, 
and the mind naturally adverts to the consequences 
which must follow ; and as the mind will be affected 
by the object which it contemplates, the apprehension 
of impending judgment will arouse our slavish fears. 
But the spirit which is given us includes a principle 
of divine love — love to holiness ; and so far as this 
principle operates to produce sorrow for our sins, it is 
spiritual. It is safe to say, that where there is no love 
to holiness, there is no spiritual repentance. And it is 
not easy to see how a -man can repent of sin, without 
such a faith in the word of God as will produce that 
kind of sorrow for sin which corresponds with the 
kind of faith which he exercises. If I am correct in 
my opinion — and I feel a good degree of assurance that 
I am — there is in the natural man nothing that is 
spiritually good. And when the Holy Spirit is given 
to us, He works in us all those principles and affections 
which constitute true Christian character. This He 
does by the word of truth as a means : "Sanctify them 
through thy truth ; thy word is truth." And whatever 
particular truth is contemplated by the mind, will 
affect the heart according to the specific nature of that 
truth, and will produce or excite repentance, faith, 
hope, etc., just as the peculiar nature of that truth is 
adapted to inspire. And without extending our in- 
quiries any farther on the priority of these graces, we 
will now speak more particularly of faith. 

As we use the word in ordinary discourse, faith is 
one of the most simple and common acts of the human 



62 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

mind. Faith is belief. If a man tells me that the sun 
is farther from the earth than the moon, and I believe 
his word, this believing is faith. This is the meaning 
of the word in respect to every thing we believe on 
any subject whatever. And to attach to any word 
which often occurs in the Bible a meaning different 
from that which it bears in other writings, or in its 
ordinary use. is an unjustifiable perversion of the 
sacred record. To adopt a rule of interpretation based 
upon such a principle would make the Bible of no use 
as a book of divine instruction. In the use of the word 
faith there is some latitude of application, as is the 
case of many other words ; but we shall pass this for 
the present without particular notice. 

Faith, properly so called, always rests upon evi- 
dence; hence to believe without evidence, is not 
rational; and in respect to our relations to God, it is 
extremely dangerous. The strength of our faith is, or 
at least should be, in proportion to the strength of the 
evidence upon which it rests. But even the impartial 
and judicious inquirer may sometimes fail rightly to 
appreciate the strength of the evidence, and, conse- 
quently, his faith will be weak, or perhaps erroneous. 

The sources of evidence are various, but there is one 
source of evidence which is infallible. When we have 
the evidence of God's word, the subject admits of no 
controversy. The testimony of the Holy Scriptures 
may be corroborated by other evidence, feut it stands 
in no need of it, and no rebutting evidence should 
ever be admitted. God's word is all-sufficient to estab- 
lish any truth. 

The faith which is founded upon the word of God is 
sometimes called divine faith, because God is the testi- 
fier. Faith in the gospel, which is saving faith, is 



THE DOCTRINE OF FAITH. 63 

often denominated evangelical faith; and as no man 
has this faith but by the Spirit of God, it is often prop- 
erly called spiritual faith. 

Our faith should embrace all that God has revealed. 
But there are some things repealed in Scripture which 
are not essential to salvation ; and, though it is our 
duty to believe them, yet our salvation does not depend 
upon our faith in these things. But if a man willingly 
tolerates himself in disbelieving any truth contained in 
God's word, it warrants a strong presumption that his 
mind has never been reduced to that humble and obe- 
dient frame, without which he will never exercise a 
saving faith in the gospel. 

The moral law — that is, the law of ten commands — 
is a proper object of faith. But we are not to believe 
the law for the same purpose that we believe the gos- 
pel. But if we do not believe that the law is of Divine 
authority; if we do not believe that it is holy, just, and 
good ; if we do not believe that it imposes an obligation 
to obedience, and do not believe its penalty will be ex- 
ecuted, I am unable to see how its precepts can be 
brought to bear upon the hearts and consciences of 
men. But we must not believe in the law as a medium 
of mercy, but as an instrument of death. There is no 
mercy in the law to the guilty; it is all curse and con- 
demnation. If any should ask, If a sinner would now 
keep the law perfectly, might he not obtain life? I an- 
swer, No: he can not obtain life by any such means. 
If a man never had sinned, and would then keep the 
law perfectly, he should u live; " but to those that have 
sinned, the law speaks nothing but "judgment and 
fiery indignation. 1 ' A sinner can no more '-escape the 
damnation of hell " by any obedience he can render 
to the law, than he can quench the fires of hell in that 



64 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

way. If we entertain any faith in the law that leads 
us to hope that it will relax in the smallest degree its 
severity, or make allowance for our imperfections and 
the weakness of our nature, or for temptations and en- 
ticements, it is a false faith, because it is based on a false 
foundation, and the hope that rests upon it is a vain 
hope. We must believe the law will give us death, and 
nothing else. 

I wish to avoid all unnecessary distinctions, but I 
think it will not be amiss to make one or two remarks 
here that may be useful on some occasions. We should 
carefully distinguish between faith and presumption. 
Faith is founded upon evidence, but belief without 
evidence is presumption. A very sound philosopher 
has said that " to believe without evidence is the part 
of a fool." And perhaps there are few who are not 
in some things liable to this imputation. There is 
always danger of this in respect to things which we 
wish to be true. 

Another distinction which should not be overlooked, 
is the difference between faith and delusion. To be- 
lieve on false evidence is delusion. ■ The nature of 
these two errors differs but little, and the effect is the 
same. There is, probably, more danger here than 
there is in the other case, because many false teachers 
have gone out into the world. The last error is more 
prevalent in the enlightened nations of the earth than 
the first. In view of the past history and present 
condition of the human race, my heart grieves — and 
grieves intensely — while I reflect upon the unnum- 
bered thousands of my fellow-mortals who, by these 
errors, have been led, and are now deceived, to their 
eternal ruin. There are, no doubt, now, many mill- 
ions in the habitations of eternal despair who, while 



THE DOCTRINE OF FAITH. 65 

in this world, pleased themselves with the belief that 
they were the special favorites of" heaven, and scarce 
felt a doubt that death would usher them into the ' 
abodes of heavenly glory. And there are millions 
now, under the same spirit of delusion, traveling the 
same path, vainly flattering themselves that they are 
in the highway to eternal life, but the end of their 
way is death. 

It is a part of the experience of almost every child 
of God, that he has occasional fears that he is in a 
deceived state and cherishing false hopes. Such fears 
are not very pleasant, but they are very useful. 
They prompt us to a more careful and critical exam- 
ination of the subject, and thus lead to more enlarged 
knowledge of the way of salvation. 

Jesus Christ is the object of saving faith : " He that 
believeth on me hath everlasting life." But we are 
not at liberty to make Him what we would have Him v 
and then believe on him according to what we have 
made Him. We must believe on Him just as he is set 
forth in the gospel; and the evidence upon which 
we must found our faith is the word of God. To be- 
lieve on Him thus is not presumption, for we have the 
sure word of God as the foundation of our faith. 
Neither is such faith delusion, for the evidence upon 
which we believe is truth — infallible truth — for it is 
the testimony of Him that can not lie, and will not 
deceive. 

The testimony of God in the gospel may relate to a 
particular matter of fact; or it may be a declaration 
of some great doctrinal truth; or it may be a promise 
to bestow upon us some great blessing or benefit. 
But whatever may be the subject of His testimony, it 
ought to be sufficient for us that God has said it ; and 



66 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

His word ought to be received with implicit confi- 
dence. If God has said it, no evidence to the con- 
trary should be admitted ; and the testimony of a 
thousand holy angels to the same point could add 
nothing to the certainty of its truth. 

That Jesus Christ died, is a simple fact, not denied 
by any who admit that the Bible is a true historical 
record, whether they believe it to be of Divine au- 
thority or not. The Jews and Mohammedans believe it ; 
and even many avowed infidels believe it on the same 
ground that they believe any other historical fact. 
But such faith is not believing that Christ died for 
sinners. We must believe in the death of Christ as a 
doctrine — a great doctrinal truth. This doctrine we 
can not understand too well, for it is the foundation 
of saving faith. He that believes this doctrine is 
" passed from death unto life, and shall not come into 
condemnation." I shall endeavor to exhibit this 
subject as plainly as I can. 

The sum of this doctrine, in a simple bat compre- 
hensive form, is expressed by the apostle in a few 
words, and is comprised in this sentence: "Christ 
died for our sins.' 1 He that believes this, has saving 
faith. It is true, this sentence comprehends a great 
deal. Let us, then, examine it, and see what particu- 
lar doctrines are taught, either expressly or by nec- 
essary implication. 

This doctrine embraces the atonement, which we 
regard as the most fundamental doctrine revealed in 
the gospel, and underlies the whole scheme or plan 
of man's salvation. So essential is the atonement, 
that it is not going too far to say that God couid not 
save sinners without it ; but as we design to treat on 
the atonement more at large in another place, we pro- 



THE DOCTRINE OF FAITH. 67 

pose now to consider it only in connection with the 
subject of faith. 

That Christ died for our sins, necessarily presup- 
poses that we have sinned. If we had not sinned, no 
atonement would have been necessary. But as we 
have sinned, and thereby brought ourselves under the 
condemnation of the law, it was indispensable, in order 
to our salvation, that the condemnation should be re- 
moved ; else the sentence must be executed, and the 
penalty inflicted upon us. God could not extend sav- 
ing mercy to us at the expense of His justice ; and 
justice required that sin should be punished. The 
claims of justice must therefore be satisfied. I make 
no distinction here between law and justice, for in this 
point of view they are the same. The penalty of 
that law which we have violated is death. He that 
sins, if it be but once, is doomed to death ; for God 
will by no means clear the guilty — that is, no sin 
shall go unpunished. We have sinned and subjected 
ourselves to death. This truth, so positively taught 
in Scripture, is plainly involved in the text above 
cited ; and no man can believe the text without be- 
lieving that he is justly under sentence of death. Xow 
the text says, " Christ died for our sins." And what 
is now proposed to our faith is : Did the death of 
Christ make a sufficient and perfect satisfaction for 
our sins? If it did, sin can no longer obstruct the 
saving mercy of God. The way is open, both for us 
to go to God for pardon, and for Him to come to us 
with pardon. And let no man charge me with ultra- 
ism when I say that He is as willing to bestow par- 
don as we are to receive it. The death of Christ is 
the only ground upon which we can be saved from 
our sins, and it has pleased God so to ordain that 



68 CHURCH- members' hand-book of theology. 

when we believe in this atonement, we shall have a 
personal interest in all its blessings. If the death of 
the Son of God did not make a complete and perfect 
satisfaction to Divine justice for our sins, there is no 
salvation for us ; and if it did, we should depend upon 
that alone. Let us take nothing else with that into 
our faith, as the ground of our trust. " Christ died 
for our sins;" and it is in consideration of this alone 
that God forgives sins. If we look to any obedience 
to the law rendered by us ; or to any religious duties 
performed by us ; or to any good dispositions in our- 
selves ; or to any willingness or good desires which 
we have ; or to any qualification or frames of mind 
wrought in us by the Holy Spirit, such as repentance, 
faith, love, etc., as being necessary to make satisfac- 
tion for our sins, or as. the ground of our acceptance 
with God, we are placing our faith in a wrong object, 
and undervaluing the infinite worth and sufficiency 
of that perfect satisfaction which Christ rendered to 
Divine justice on behalf of sinners. The death of 
Christ itself, independently of every thing else, satis- 
fied the Divine law; in consideration of that satisfac- 
tion the Father declared from heaven that He is well 
pleased. And when we believe in it, we shall be well 
pleased. This is life eternal. It is by Christ's death 
that we have eternal life; and God has promised all 
that believe it that He will remember their sins no 
more. Let Jesus Christ crucified be the corner-stone 
upon which we build our faith, and then it is not 
possible for our faith to be too strong, nor for our 
trust in it to be too single. Let us not complicate it 
with any thing else, nor encumber it with conditions. 
Though there are many other truths revealed in the 
gospel, which it is right and proper that we should 



THE DOCTRINE OF FAITH. 69 

believe, yet, when we believe this great and funda- 
mental truth, we have a personal interest in all its 
benefits. If we truly believe in it, then we desire it — 
we glory in it — we trust in it — and Christ crucified be- 
comes to us all in all. The Son of God assumed our 
nature that He might redeem us from the curse of the 
law. " He bore our sins in His own body on the 
tree." And we may say : 

"The cursed tree hath blessing in't, 
My sweetest balm it bears." (Dr. Watts.) 

That Christ died for our sins, is that great doctrinal 
truth that we must believe. It is "the gospel, 11 which, 
if a sinner believes, he shall be saved, for Jesus Christ 
has said it. 

Now let us direct our attention a little to faith in 
the promise. 

Whether I am singular in the opinion or not, I be- 
lieve it is possible for a man to have a firm and sav- 
ing belief in the great doctrinal truth which we have 
been considering; and yet for want of more light and 
a clearer understanding of the gospel, he may be so 
much in the dark as not to be satisfied that he has a 
personal interest in Christ. But I say Christ is his 
Savior, whether he is able to realize his interest in 
Him or not. What, then, is necessary in order to set 
him free? There is but one thing necessary, and 
that is, for him to believe the promise. Salvation is 
promised to every one that believes the doctrine — to 
every one that believes that Christ died to save sinners ; 
and God will certainly verify the truth of this prom- 
ise. We are saved through the belief of the truth; 
and the essential truth to be believed is, that " Jesus 
Christ came into the world to save sinners." And it 



70 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

hardly can have escaped the notice of any attentive 
reader of the New Testament, that the Scriptures 
seem to dwell upon this idea with peculiar emphasis. 
Our Savior himself taught this great .essential truth 
so frequently, and with so much energy and constancy, 
as to show the great importance which He attached 
to it, and which He would have us to attach to it, 
declaring that whoever believes this truth shall be 
saved. For whenever faith in Christ is enjoined or 
spoken of in connection with salvation, we must un- 
derstand it as having reference to His atonement, 
for without this He is no Savior. And who has 
read the writings of the apostles and evangelists, and 
their preaching, as recorded in the New Testament, 
without observing with what earnestness and fervor 
they exhibit this doctrine ? 

I desire to simplify the subject as much as I possi- 
bly can, that you may understand it. I will state 
both the doctrine to be believed and the promise of 
salvation to the believer : The doctrine — " Christ died 
for our sins." (1 Cor. xv.) The promise — " He that 
believes shall be saved." (Mark xvi.) Paul says the 
first statement is the gospel; and Jesus Christ says 
he that believes the gospel shall be saved. How plain, 
how definite, is the instruction of the Divine word ! 
"What glorious simplicity is here ! The simplicity of 
the gospel is one of its chief glories. We find the 
same, in substance, taught in many other places, and 
in a variety of forms. Thus: "The blood of Jesus 
Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin." "Whom 
(Jesus Christ) God hath set forth to be a propitiation 
through faith in His blood" And again, " Christ is the 
end of the law for righteousness to every one that be- 
lieveth." Do you believe that the righteousness of 



THE DOCTRINE OF FAITH. 71 

Christ is the only thing to justify you before God ? 
If you do, that righteousness is yours. If I have 
failed to make this matter plain, it is not for the want 
of effort, but for want of skill. It has not been my 
design, in stating it thus, to annul or depreciate any 
other doctrine or any duty found in the Bible; but I 
want the reader to understand that to believe that 
the death of the Son of God is the only ground upon 
which a sinner is accepted in the sight of God, is 
saving .faith. So long as the believer rests upon this 
ground he is strong, and I think he will feel strong — 
not strong in his own strength, but in the strength 
of the foundation upon which he stands. Trusting in 
this, he may well say, "Who shall lay any thing to 
my charge?" "It is Christ that died." Freely ad- 
mitting that repentance towards God, love to God, 
and all else that the Scriptures teach and require, are 
important and necessary, yet the faith by which we 
are accepted, justified, and saved, is faith in the atone- 
ment of Jesus Christ as dying for sinners. As the only 
way by which we can be accepted of God is through 
the death of the Lord Jesus, so the only faith neces- 
sary to obtain that acceptance is to believe in it. We 
have any desirable number of promises in the Script- 
ures, that if we believe this doctrine we shall be 
saved. By this faith we have fellowship with Christ, 
and become the children of God. By it we are justi- 
fied ; by it we have peace with God. If we have this 
faith we " have passed from death unto life, and shall 
not come into condemnation." A firm and undoubt- 
ing belief of this doctrine is the full assurance of 
faith ; and a full and undoubting belief of the promise 
annexed to this faith, gives the full assurance of hope. 
Why, then, do not believers rejoice in Christ always? 



72 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

This rejoicing is certainly the privilege of every be- 
liever ; and if they do not daily rejoice in Christ, it 
is because they do not rightly improve the privilege 
to which they are entitled. Satan may tempt the be- 
liever to doubt the sufficiency of the atonement^ and 
in this way perplex his mind with darkness and dis- 
quiet ; but I think it is much oftener the case that 
from some cause or other he is led to doubt the prom- 
ise. The truth and certainty of God's promises ought 
never to be doubted, because "He is faithful that 
promised." All the "promises of God are in Christ 
yea and amen," to the glory of God by us. But 
Satan has many advantages. The mind may labor 
under dejection, arising from some peculiar derange- 
ment of health ; or we may be constitutionally dis- 
posed to view things, especially future events, in a 
dubious and unpropitious aspect. Outward afflictions 
and adverse providences — dark prospects with regard 
to ourselves or our relative interests — many such 
things may induce a gloomy or desponding state of 
mind. Satan may take advantage of these things, to 
cast in doubts and misgivings with respect to our in- 
terest in Christ, and thus hinder us of that joy in be- 
lieving which it is at all times the privilege of every 
believer to cherish and maintain. 

But oftener, by far, is the peace and joy of the be- 
liever marred by his own disobedience and unfaithful- 
ness. Christians are too much of their time off their 
guard, and hence are often betrayed into sin. Conse- 
quently, a sense of guilt oppresses the conscience — hope 
is wavering, and his faith in the promise falters ; and 
he that could once "hope against hope" can now hardly 
hope at all. If he had walked in the light, he would 
have rejoiced in the light; but he walked in darkness. 



THE DOCTRINE OF FAITH. 73 

and found darkless as a recompense. He may think that 
he ought to "believe down " his fears — and so perhaps 
he ought — but he finds his faith not equal to the work. 
A Christian may leave off a known duty by degrees ; 
and, by the same slow degrees, he will lose his spirit- 
ual-mindedness. And though the neglect may be as 
a thorn in the foot all the time, yet he will become so 
accustomed to its slight ranklings that he will find 
comparatively very little inconvenience from it. till the 
resumption of the neglected duty will appear to be a 
task beyond his streugth ; and less matter, if he does 
not begin to persuade himself that the duty is not 
really obligatory on him. And he will not be at a 
loss for excuses. At length conscience, having been 
so long stifled, will scarcely whisper its reproofs, 
and he makes up his mind to bear the burden. But. 
in the meantime, where is his spiritual joy? What 
has become of his lively hopes ? He has lost that sweet 
and holy delight which meditation upon the love of 
Jesus once inspired. Possibly he may not be greatly 
oppressed with painful doubts and fears : but he is sen- 
sible there is something wanting ; and he is often ready 
to say. b " Oh ! that it were with me as in months past."' 
The face of the Lord always shines on the path of 
duty : but " he that regards lying vanities, sins against 
his own soul."' He should remember the Lord's judg- 
ment against the " lukewarm?' tor he is but too near that 
fearful condition. I might enlarge here to a great 
extent, but I must set limits to myself somewhere. 
And I would say to my brethren that it is much 
better to avoid these hampering doubts and fears, 
than to incur the necessity' of finding a way out of 
them. And in order to avoid them, consider a few 
things which I will submit to your reflection. And, 



74 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

1. First be constant, punctual and, as much as pos- 
sible, fervent in prayer. Pray, and pray earnestly, for 
the salvation of sinners. Pray for the purity and 
prosperity of the Church. Pray for your brethren. 
Do not forget to pray for the Lord's ministers, and 
especially for the one who labors for you. "When you 
come to the mercy-seat, you are as near to your Heav- 
enly Father as you can get, and as far from your 
spiritual enemies as you can get. It is a safe retreat 
for a Christian. Doubts and fears can not live near to 
Christ, for His presence dispels darkness." By the ex- 
ercise of prayer yon maintain the spirit of prayer; and 
to lose the spirit of prayer, only in a partial degree, 
is a sad loss indeed. Prayer "-gives exercise to faith 
and love/' It is possible that you, like some others, 
have seen a time when you would have been glad to 
know that it was your privilege to pray ; and it is 
more than likely you have seen the time when you 
not only could pray, but could not help praying. The 
poet has well said, that — 

" Satan trembles when he sees 
The weakest saint upon his knees." 

Well, brethren, make Satan afraid, for if you do not, 
you may well be afraid of him. 

2. Whatever will promote growth in grace, will also 
be a good shield to you from perplexing doubts. 
Therefore one of the safeguards against these sinful 
doubts (for they are sinful) is to be well established 
in the truth. With a view to this, you should make 
yourself thoroughly and intimately acquainted with 
the word of God, as much so as you possibly can. 
This will give you enlarged views of. the plan of sal- 
vation ; and you will better understand the great and 



THE DOCTRINE OF FAITH. 75 

precious promises that God has given us ; and you will 
be able more readily and more effectually to apply 
them to your own case. For when you are able to 
realize your interest in the promises, those misgivings 
and uneasy forebodings respecting your final accept- 
ance will, in a great measure, abate, and your re-in- 
vigorated faith will get the victory over Satan's tempta- 
tions. It is not to be wondered at, if Christians hob- 
ble and grope in the dark, with little enjoyment of re- 
ligion — believing but little, and feeling but little, and 
doing but little — if the word of God is neglected. It 
is a deep well, but not so deep but that we may draw 
up the water if we are thirsty. A good degree of 
knowledge in the Scriptures will make you strong in 
the grace that is in Christ Jesus. It is " a lamp to our 
feet, and a light in our path/' It is an armory which 
will furnish you with every necessary spiritual weapon 
to maintain your warfare against the powers of dark- 
ness — the snares of the world, and the lusts of the 
flesh. 

The Holy Scriptures are " able to make you wise 
unto salvation ; " and they are "profitable for doctrine, 
for reproof, for correction and instruction in righteous- 
ness," that you may be perfect, thoroughly furnished 
unto all good works. You can scarcely be placed in 
any condition in life, or be in any state of mind, but 
you may find something in the Bible appropriate to 
your peculiar need ; and if you will store your mind 
with the rich treasures of the Divine word, you will 
have the. needed supply at hand. When I reflect upon 
the treatment the word of God receives from mankind, 
I am made to be astonished at His loni>--sufYerino; 
mercy. " I have written to him the great things of 
my law, and they were accounted a strange thing." 



76 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

Just as we treat the word of God, so would we treat 
Him; and if not, how will we make the contrary ap- 
pear ? We love God no more than we love His word. 
3. Even though it may be labor in vain, duty com- 
pels me to suggest another means of promoting spirit- 
ual strength and a more assured hope in the hearts of 
my brethren. It is religious conversation. Perhaps 
with many this is the least acceptable topic in the 
whole series. But whether this remedy be tasteful or 
nauseous, faithfulness demands its exhibition. Our 
doubting and distrust is displeasing to God, because 
it is an impeachment of His faithfulness; and He 
would have us to "trust and not be afraid." ISTo 
means, therefore, should be neglected that promises 
growth in grace and spirituality. None of us are ig- 
norant of that element of our moral nature which we 
call sympathy ; and we ought to consider its power 
over the heart, and enlist it in the service of God. 
This sympathy is that handle (so to speak) of the 
soul of which religious conversation takes hold, and 
which is so easily wielded to mutual edification. And 
as idle and worldly discourse has a natural tendency 
to produce levity and worldly-mindedness, so religious 
conversation has a natural tendency to foster a spirit- 
ual state of mind. Why, then, do we so much indulge 
in the former, and neglect the latter? It is enough 
to make one ''weep in secret places," to reflect how 
little the subject of religion is made the theme of 
social conversation among those who profess to believe 
that it is the greatest and best of all subjects. Does 
not practice condemn profession ? What excuse can 
we offer for thus neglecting one of the best means of 
promoting the interests of vital religion that a 
Christian can command, and a means that every 



THE DOCTRINE OF FAITH. 77 

Christian is able to use in a greater or less degree? 
The topics of religious conversation are so numerous, 
so rich, and so various, that we need never be at a loss 
for subject-matter that will make religious intercourse 
both pleasant and profitable ; and many of the topics 
are so entirely within the comprehension of those 
who are the least informed in religious matters, that 
opportunities of being mutually helpful are constantly 
occurring, and they ought not to pass without im- 
provement; for in many instances the Christian 
thereby acquires additional knowledge in the word 
of God ; and even when this is not the case, Christians 
are edified in love and comfort — their spiritual .strength 
is renewed, and growth in grace is promoted. Social 
religious discourse whets the appetite for spiritual in- 
struction. The remembrance of their having taken 
sweet counsel together, is a subject of pleasing reflec- 
tion ; and after they separate, they can have a good 
repast on "the fragments that are left." Moreover, it 
tends to promote brotherly love and confidence. It 
also brings Christians to the unity of the spirit, and 
strengthens the bonds of peace. By this means many 
a drooping spirit has been revived, many a feeble knee 
has been strengthened, and many a blessing has de- 
scended upon the head of those who have thus been 
the instruments of edifying the children of God; for 
He never forgets these cups of cold water given to 
his thirsty children. And further, it honors Christ, 
and has been the means of converting sinners. Within 
the memory of the writer, religious conversation held 
a prominent place among Christians where two or 
three were providentially gathered together: "Then 
they that feared the Lord spake often one to another." 
There is now more refinement among Christians, 



78 church-members' hand book of theology. 

but I fear there is less devotion. The time has been 
when our Christian fathers were deprived of this 
blessed privilege, except as they were wont to meet in 
the secret retreats of the forest, or in unfrequented 
nooks and corners ; and if political despotism should 
ever again debar us of these means of spiritual im- 
provement, we should more correctly appreciate the 
privileges and advantages we now so ungratefully 
slight. And who can say that such a time will never 
come? If the progress of error for twenty years in 
the future should be proportionally as rapid as it has 
been during the past twenty years, there is abundant 
reason for. the most alarming apprehension. 

A reformation is greatly needed ; and if it is prac- 
ticable, where shall it begin? It ought to begin every- 
where, and among every grade of society. The work 
is now, probably, ten times more difficult than it would 
have been twenty years ago, aud the necessity for it, 
perhaps, is ten times more urgent than it was then. 

I am now impatient to pursue this line of thought; 
but knowing that I have already exceeded the limits 
of the request of my brethren, I must leave out what 
further I had prepared on this topic. But I will add 
that religious themes ought to have the preference of 
all others; and almost any other subject is preferred 
to religion. "Where there is no wood, the fire goeth 
out;" and where the means of grace are neglected, 
spiritual affections decay. 

Before I proceed farther I must trouble the reader 
with an apology. I was requested by my brethren to 
write a doctrinal treatise. That I have, in the preced- 
ing remarks, indulged myself in practical admonitions, 
I freely admit, and I constantly find myself leading 
off in that direction. The intimate and inseparable 



THE DOCTRINE OF FAITH. <9 

connection between doctrinal truth and practical piety 
is such that I found myself unable to treat that part 
of the subject in any other way. But I have more yet 
to say on the general subject of faith. 

When we consider the importance of the office of 
faith in the economy of our salvation, and the rela- 
tions which it sustains to the other graces of the Spirit, 
and also to the greatest covenant blessings, we can not 
fail to see the propriety of arriving at as full and cor- 
rect an understanding of the subject as we possibly 
can. The question, Am I a believer? has agitated the 
mind of many a child of God. And indeed it is a 
question of transcendent importance. The. most mo- 
mentous interests of man. in this world, and that 
which is to come, are involved in it. This question is 
an appropriate subject of inquiry during our whole 
pilgrimage from Egypt to Canaan — if you will bear 
with this mode of expression. For as, in the order of 
nature, day and night alternately succeed each other, 
and are set " the one over against the other,'- so it is, 
in most cases, with the true believer. He may have 
his joyful hours and his cheerful days, but, with com- 
paratively few exceptions, we must remember the days 
of darkness, for they may be many. We will now in- 
quire a little into the cause of these vicissitudes. And 
we need not seek for the cause anywhere else but in 
ourselves; for it is the privilege of God's children to 
" rejoice in the Lord always." We are prone to put 
stumbling-blocks in our own way, and therefore it is 
no wonder if we find impediments while endeavoring 
to climb the mount of vision, where we may overlook 
the Jordan and view the promised inheritance. 

As preparatory to the consideration of this question, 
let us notice some things that baffle your efforts to come 



80 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

to a satisfactory decision in regard to your true con- 
dition. Perhaps one will say, If I could be sure that I 
am converted ! This question may be virtually the 
same as the other; but it is far more difficult to arrive 
at a satisfactory decision ; and, besides this, there is 
much greater danger of falling into a fatal mistake as 
to the fact. It is grievous to think how many there 
are who believe themselves to be converted, when, in 
fact, their hearts are as far from Christ as the heart of 
an infidel. What is the process by which such a one 
solves the mighty problem ? He looks into his own 
heart to find what he wants; he takes the feelings of 
his own heart as evidence, and decides by this evidence 
that he is a Christian, and the result is that u a de- 
ceived heart has turned him aside." The whole pro- 
cess of examination begins and ends in himself; while 
he forgets, or has never known, that "the heart is de- 
ceitful above all things." Not a glance has ever been 
cast upon Christ. With many, the natural passions or 
affections of the mind are operated upon, as it were, 
mechanically or sympathetically, and the feelings of 
the heart are wrought up to a high state of excite- 
ment, and all this is supposed to be the operations of 
the Divine Spirit ; and this being taken for granted, 
a false peace brings relief. Thus the subject of these 
exercises feels a strong assurance of his being in a con- 
verted state. And it may be that being pleased with 
a notion that he is an object of God's love, and 
cheered with the hope of gaining heaven at last, and 
encouraged by the confidence that others have in him, 
he may live out a life in a tolerably straight line, and, 
after all, die an utter stranger to Christ and the power 
of His cross. But in many instances these conver- 
sions, as they are supposed to be. prove their spurious 



THE DOCTRINE OF FAITH. SI 

character in a very short time. Such a one having 
obtained deliverance from the agonies of a goading 
conscience, glories in his peace : and he may really 
have peace ; but to have peace with a deceived con- 
science, is a very different thing from having "peace 
with Grod through oar Lord Jesus Christ." It is an 
unhappy condition to have no peace, but it is incom- 
parably worse to cherish a false peace. Christ is our 
peace, who has broken down the wall of partition 
which separated us from the favor of God. To seek 
peace, therefore, from the workings and exercises of 
our own minds, is a very unsafe expedient. And if 
we draw peace from a false source, what else niay we 
expect but that it will be a false peace? If your trust 
for acceptance is in Christ alone, look directly to 
Him — to Him alone, to His all-fullness — if you would 
desire assured peace. For why should you wish to 
draw your peace through the tube (so to speak) of 
your feelings and the evidences of your conversion ? 
AYhy not rather go at once to the fountain that was 
opened for sin and uncleanness, and drink peace and 
consolation, as nearly as possible, from where it issues 
from the throne of G-od and the Lamb? 

I have been using the word conversion in that sense 
in which it is usually employed in preaching and con- 
versation. It has been so long and so generally used 
to signify that change which is wrought in us by the 
H0I3' Spirit, and which is also called regeneration, 
that I thought it best to retain it, especially as I do 
not see any good that would be gained by disturbing 
the ordinary meaning of the term in a treatise like 
this. 

But more directly to meet the inquiry of one who is 
really concerned about his state, and desirous to obtain 



82 CHURH-MEMBERS' HAND-BOOK OF THEOLOGY. 

a more established hope, I would say that your faith 
must be placed on a right object — and that object 
must be Christ. He is the only proper object of saving 
faith. .Again : Your faith must rest upon right evi- 
dence — and that evidence must be the word of God. 
By these criteria you may proceed to try your faith. 
If your faith (such faith as you have) leads you to 
renounce all confidence in yourself, and to trust in 
Christ alone for salvation, you have one of the first 
and best evidences that your faith is genuine, evan- 
gelical faith. " Christ Jesus came into the world to 
save sinners ;" and if you are not feelingly convinced 
that you are a sinner — a lost sinner, and justly con- 
demned by the law of God — I should think you are 
not very anxious to have the question decided as to 
whether }^ou are a believer or not. Jesus says He 
came to seek and to save the lost ; and if you are a 
lost sinner — so lost, that you can not be saved except 
Christ saves you — and it is to Him you look, and in 
Him alone that you trust — I repeat it, you have -one 
of the first and best evidences that jou are a true be- 
liever. 

Just in this place I will say one thing,* which you 
may always keep in mind when you would examine 
your faith. It is this : It is impossible, according to the 
laws of the human mind, for us to trust in any thing 
in which we have no faith. Upon this ground L say 
that if you trust in Christ, you believe in Him. For 
if you did not believe in Him as the Savior of sinners, 
you, as a sinner, could not trust in Him as your Sav- 
ior. " Blessed are all they that trust in Him." " They 
that trust in him shall never be ashamed.'" If, there- 
fore, your faith is in Him, it is directed to the only 
proper object. It is that very faith by which sinners 



THE DOCTRINE OF FAITH. 83 

are saved. We will, therefore, revert to the other 
criterion. 

True faith is founded upon the word of God. If you 
trust in Christ for salvation because God has promised 
salvation to all that believe in Christ, your faith rests 
upon the right evidence. You need want no other 
evidence, for " the word of our God shall stand 
forever." Possessing these two piime characteristics 
of saving faith, you are fully warranted in deciding 
that 3^our faith is the faith of God's children. There 
are some who look to their own obedience, upright 
conduct and religious life, or to the warmth and 
fervor of their religious affections, and perhaps to 
many other such things, as a kind of refuge from 
their fears, and build a hope of their gracious state 
and their acceptance with God upon these; but al- 
though true faith will produce such fruits, yet these 
are too variable, too fluctuating, and often too decep- 
tive for the soul to rest upon. If your faith is such as 
it ought to be, and in proper exercise, your mind will 
fly to Christ as your only place of security. And 
this is the genuine actings of a true faith. "In Thee 
do I put my trust; " and your heart will say, " Christ 
crucified " is my resting place. " It is Christ that 
died." If your faith will lay hold on this truth, and 
you can use it rightly, you may triumph over all op- 
position. 

Before I proceed to the last paragraph intended for 
this chapter, perhaps I ought to remind the reader 
that in the Scriptures, and also in ordinary discourse, 
the word faith is used in the same sense as the word 
trust ; and likewise the word trust is used to signify 
the same as the word faith. Either word will often 
convey the idea intended by the writer. There is, 



84 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

however, a shade of difference between these two ex- 
ercises of the mind, though they are generally exer- 
.cised in connection. Faith respects the truth believed; 
trust has respect to the promise made to the believer. 
Faith looks to God's veracity ; trust regards God's 
faithfulness. The language of faith is, God is a God 
of truth ; the language of trust is, God is a faithful 
God. Faith embraces things both past and future ; 
trust mostly contemj)lates the future. I could easily 
exemplify the distinction by referring to certain script- 
ures, but by this time you probably think I have 
* been unnecessarily minute. I will only add that when 
you commune with your own heart with a view to as- 
certain whether or not you are a real believer, you 
will probably find it easier to discover your trust 
than your faith ; but if your trust is in Christ, your 
faith is there, too, whether you discover it or not. 

If I set reasonable limits to my whole task, I must 
also set limits to the particular parts of it. I will, 
therefore, present you with only one more test by 
which to judge whether your faith is truly evangelical ; 
you may decide by the value which you set upon Christ. 
To the unbeliever Christ is "as a root out of a dry 
ground." He has no form nor comeliness; he sees no 
beauty in Him that he should desire Him. Having 
no real sense of his need of such a Savior, he does not 
know how to estimate His worth. The unbeliever has 
some notion that he can not be saved without Him; 
but he looks upon Him as having died to put sinners 
in a condition to save themselves, rather than as being 
their only, their whole Savior. He will readily admit 
that he can not be saved without Christ, and that there 
must be an important use for Him in the work of sal- 
vation ; but, at the same time, he realty does not know 



THE DOCTRINE OF FAITH. 85 

what use to make of Him for himself. The "Unbeliever 
supposes that Christ died to make a way whereby a 
sinner may be saved if he will try; but has very little 
more than a vague and indefinite notion of what 
Christ accomplished by His death ; and if Jesus 
would keep him out of hell, he would have very little 
further use for Him. To say the truth, he has such 
imperfect or erroneous views of the necessity that 
Christ should die for sinners, that he must of necessity 
have very imperfect conceptions of the benefits se- 
cured by His death. He has imperfect views of the 
holiness and justice of that law which he has violated 
times without number; he has inadequate views of 
that ruined condition into which he has brought him- 
self by his transgressions ; he has very imperfect ideas 
of the sinfulness of his nature, and consequently he 
does not realize the greatness of his need of such a 
Mediator as the " Man Christ Jesus ;" and not being 
impressed with the fact of his being a lost sinner, he 
is incapable of duly estimating the excellency of Christ 
Jesus the Lord. Very different is it with the true 
believer. He regards Christ as his All in AIL To 
him, Christ is the Chief among all the thousands, and 
altogether desirable. He knows that he is lost in him- 
self, and that without Christ he is lost forever. He 
sees that Jesus is just such a Savior as he needs — even 
a Savior of sinners. To him Christ is precious — infi- 
nitely precious; so that if Christ is his, he has the 
very thing that he needs, as well as the thing that he 
desires. The language of his heart is, "Lord, if Thou 
wilt, thou canst make me clean ; " and in proportion 
as he is able to understand and appreciate the evidence 
that Christ is willing to save him, will be the measure 
of his hope and comfort. Take from him "Jesus Christ 



86 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

and Him crucified," and he has nothing left. With 
him, Christ is the u sure foundation," and he is re- 
solved to build upon no other. Even before he was 
brought to feel that he was not worthy that Jesus 
should come under his roof, he had found that sin is 
" an evil thing and bitter;" but now, more than ever, 
he hates sin, and grieves in his heart that so much 
still remains of his former depravity. Yet he would 
discard the idea of being saved by his own holiness, 
for he sees that salvation is in Christ alone : 

" None but Jesus — none but Jesus, 
Can do helpless sinners good." 

If the believer could know with positive certainty 
that he would be finally saved, it would still be the 
desire of his soul to live free from sin. 



REPENTANCE. 87 



OHAPTEE YI. 



REPENTANCE. 



The discussion of the doctrine of faith leads us in 
course to the subject of repentance. There has been 
some difference of opinion among* Christians as to 
which precedes — faith or repentance. I do not esteem 
the question one of much importance, and therefore 
shall not detain the reader with an investigation. 
My own views of the subject preclude the necessity 
of determining the priority of these graces. They, 
with all other gracious exercises of the mind, are the 
immediate fruits of the Spirit; and when God gives 
us His Spirit, every grace of the Spirit is virtually 
included in that one gift. But I think we may safely 
conclude, that where there is no love to God there is 
no spiritual repentance towards God. I chose to dis- 
cuss the subject of faith first, not because of the order 
of time in which these graces are first exercised, but 
for reasons which I deemed of greater importance. 

It is, however, a matter of great importance to dis- 
tinguish, if we can, between true evangelical repent- 
ance and other exercises of the mind which have 
nothing truly spiritual in them. On this rock thou- 
sands have split, and thousands more are in danger. 
The question, therefore, has strong claims on our 
earnest consideration. With a view to lend the reader 
Borne little assistance in judging between that which 
8 



88 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

is true and that which is spurious, we will say that 
the mind may be in a state of great perturbation,, 
and the natural affections wrought up to a high pitch 
of excitement, produced by a powerful exhortation, 
or some providential visitation — many tears may flow, 
and strong resolves may be formed — and all this 
without the work of the Holy Spirit. In many in- 
stances this turbulence and pungent distress do not 
last much longer than the occasion which produced 
them ; and when the}' do survive the occasion, they 
subside by degrees and leave the heart no better than 
it was before. It was a natural, not a spiritual, op- 
eration. Some persons, in time of sickness, and under 
apprehension of approaching death, become greatly 
alarmed, and, reflecting on a past life of sin, and care- 
less indifference about their future destiny, endure 
the most bitter regret, and set many firm resolutions, 
that, if their lives should be spared, they will never 
more return to their former sinful course of life, but 
become religious and try to serve the Lord. Under 
these impressions they will pra} T , and request the 
prayers of others. But when restored to health they 
give clear evidence that the love of sin is not sub- 
dued. In these strong sensations there is more love 
of life than love of holiness.^ It is remorse, not re- 
pentance. I can assign no reason why the Holy 
Spirit may not visit a person with His life-giving 
power in a time of sickness as well as in health ; 
but, when He does, it will eventually bring forth 
fruit unto God, and not be like seed sown upon stony 
ground. 

I have also known persons to fall into a state of 
mental dejection, and remain so for months. They 
seem to be deeply engaged in serious thought, and to 



REPENTANCE. 89 

have no relish for worldly pleasures; rather inclined 
to solitude, and more disposed to shun than to seek 
cheerful company. In their general deportment they 
are agreeable, sedate, and blameless. Such cases are 
always thought to be quite hopeful — and, indeed, 
ought to be judged favorably; but too often it all 
passes away, and leaves but little evidence that the 
Holy Spirit was the author of these rather unusual 
sensations. I can not account for these exercises of 
the mind, but I think the solution of the problem 
belongs to philosophy, and not to theology. The real 
fruits of true repentance are not manifest. 

Once more : We occasionally meet with persons 
who, when quite young, while their hearts were 
tender, were the subjects of very serious religious im- 
pressions ; and these feelings would continue for a 
length of time — perhaps for years ; and possibly, at 
times, they would be almost ready to hope they were 
truly reconciled to God. Some such have made a 
public profession ; but whether they have or not, 
when they have gone thus far, their friends entertain 
very favorable hopes of them — and they have not been 
altogether without hope themselves. It is not easy 
to form a satisfactory judgment of such persons. 
Time will commonly reveal the truth. Some such 
persons, as they increase in years, are drawn off by 
the spirit of the world, and their true character be- 
comes more doubtful, giving too much ground for un- 
favorable inferences. But it is not so with all; and 
it is seldom that such persons make a sudden and 
violent transition from a hopeful path into the broad 
road of open wickedness. They do not forsake the 
house of God and the means of grace, but manifest 
more indifference, 'and are occasionally betrayed into 



90 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

sin. Their religious sensibilities are not paralyzed, 
but somewhat stupefied ; their religious impressions 
will frequently be revived, but remain undetermined. 
Whether such persons are the subjects of true spirit- 
ual repentance, I will not take upon myself to de- 
cide; but if these pages should ever fall under the 
eye of such a character, I would earnestly entreat 
his regard. Your situation is one of extreme peril; 
you are poised, as it were, on a pinnacle; you have 
been vibrating on this balance long enough, and a 
mere circumstance may turn the scale against you, 
and leave you in an abyss of darkness, out of which 
you may never emerge. Whether you are young or 
old, your danger is near, for there is but a step be- 
tween you and death. If you judge the world to 
come to be of any importance, }'ou should not remain 
an hour longer in your present state of uncertainty 
and indecision ; and whether you are converted or 
unconverted, let me urge you by all the solemnity 
with which eternity can invest your danger, that you 
give yourself no rest till you find security in the 
blood that cleanses from all sin. 

We repeat, that where there is no love to God 
there can be no true repentance towards God. The 
natural man being dead in trespasses and sins, hav- 
ing in his heart no love to God, and destitute of the 
spirit of life, is morally incapable of repentance; and, 
in fact, he is equally incapable of every spiritual 
affection. But when the Lord gives him His spirit, 
he has spiritual life, and possesses the full capacity 
and all the susceptibilities of the new man; and the 
question as to which precedes, whether faith or re- 
pentance, is to be referred rather to the time when 
they are first brought into sensible exercise. For all 



REPENTANCE. 91 

purposes of edification, the question of priority may 
well be dispensed with. Some men (even learned 
divines) say that every man has faith, and every 
man has repentance. If no more were intended by 
such assertions, than that every man believes some- 
thing, and every man regrets some of his actions, no 
one would dispute it; but it would be very silly talk, 
for who needs such information ? But if it is meant 
(and such I suppose to be their meaning) that every 
man has repentance towards God and faith in Jesus 
Christ, it is a flat contradiction of the word of G-od. 
In any other sense than this, the language would be 
mere quibbling. If a man has adopted a religious 
creed that necessarily involves such unscriptural doc- 
trines, he may very reasonablj T suspect its sound- 
ness. 

True spiritual repentance is a holy exercise of the 
heart; but the mere fear of future punishment is 
slavish, and may be as strong in devils as in men ; 
and, as I have said before, these fears are sinful, and 
have nothing of a holy character in them. It would, 
therefore, be a good work, if I were able to perform 
it, to exhibit the distinction between the two in so 
clear a manner that it could be well understood ; 
but to succeed in such exact discrimination, would 
require abilities above what I claim to possess. But 
if I can throw any light on the general subject, it 
is incumbent upon me to do so. And if I could know 
that these pages would never be seen by any person 
whose duty it may be to make a public use of any 
hint he might receive from the perusal, I would re- 
lieve myself of a portion of the present effort. 

In accordance with what I have been saying, holiness- 
is an essential attribute of true repentance. Anything 



92 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

called repentance which, does not possess this charac- 
teristic, is not repentance in the evangelical sense of 
the term. "We say, then, that the holiness of repent- 
ance must have, and does have, respect to the holiness 
of God. Repentance is the work of the Holy Spirit, 
and it is by the light of the Spirit that the soul is 
brought to see the holiness of the Divine character; 
and contrasting this with the sinfulness of his heart 
and life, it produces in his soul a sincere sorrow that he 
has sinned against a holy God, and a desire after 
holiness in himself. This desire of holiness proves 
that there is in his heart a love of holiness; for if he 
did not love holiness, it is not possible that he could 
desire it. By this we see that the love of God is the 
life of repentance. Wherever there is a love of holi- 
ness, there is a corresponding abhorrence of sin, and 
a consequent desire to avoid it ; for it is the same 
affection exercised in relation to the two different ob- 
jects. The priuciple is the same. And he that ear- 
nestly desires holiness, need not doubt that he loves 
God, for these affections can not be sej^arated. More- 
over, they will abide with us through life. Sorrow 
for our sins may cease with us when we are perfectly 
delivered from the power of sin, but the love of holi- 
ness will continue forever. 

Hating sin and desiring holiness, we have said, are 
virtually the same thing, and are the essential element 
of spiritual repentance. Without a portion of this ele- 
ment there is no acceptable repentance. Hence it is 
evident that holiness is that attribute of the Divine 
nature to which repentance has particular respect. 
And our obligation to be holy arises from the relation 
•in which we stand to this attribute : " Be ye holy, for 
I the Lord your God am holy." This attribute 



REPENTANCE. 98 

requires perfect holiness of every intelligent creature. 
God has this attribute in infinite perfection; and in 
Him it is immutable, and never can change — it never 
can be increased or diminished. And as the obligation 
upon us to be holy, has its foundation in the holiness 
of God, this obligation can never be changed or 
relaxed. The holiness of God is commensurate with 
the whole of His infinite nature ; and, in like manner, 
our obligation to be holy is commensurate with the 
whole of our nature. To fulfill this obligation by at- 
taining to this degree of holiness, should be our high- 
est ambition and our constant endeavor; and although 
we may never, in this life, reach this high attain- 
ment, yet we should press toward this mark, that 
we may gain the prize of our high calling. And 
never for a moment should we be satisfied with what 
we have gained, nor cease our efforts till we are 
crowned with the object of our earnest aspirations. 

We will now consider the subject of repentance 
more especially in its relation to the Divine law. Of 
course we have already anticipated this aspect of the 
subject to a considerable extent. The moral law is an 
expression of the obligation we are under to be holy; 
and the commandment before quoted, " Be ye holy, 
for I the Lord thy God am holy," comprehends the 
whole obligation of the moral law. It has been said 
that this law is a transcript of the moral perfections 
of the Lawgiver; and it is with great propriety so 
called, for in it we see the moral nature of that God 
to whom we are accountable. The holiness and justice 
of God are the two attributes which are most promi- 
nently set forth to us in the Divine law ; and hence 
holiness and justice are the two attributes of the law, 
which more immediately bear upon us. "The law is 



94 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

holy, and just, and good;" and it is its holiness and 
justice which constitute its goodness. The holiness of 
the law devolves upon us the obligation to be holy ; hence 
it has special respect to obedience, and the penitent sin- 
ner feels the obligation. The justice of the law pre- 
scribes and inflicts the appropriate penalty ; hence it 
has "special respect to disobedience. The obligation to 
obey the precept, or holy commandment, refers to 
God acting in His office as the Supreme Lawgiver. 
The administration of the penalty refers to God as 
acting in His office as the Supreme Judge. 

Without pursuing this line of discrimination any 
further, we are now prepared to inquire what bearing 
these two fundamental principles have on the subject 
of repentance. And each reader may judge of the 
spiritual character of his own repentance, by compar- 
ing it with these two prime characteristics of the Di- 
vine law. The proper use of true repentance is to 
bring the alienated heart back to the holiness of the 
law; and this will be its effect in so far as it affects 
any thing in relation to God — at least so far as it 
affects any thing acceptable to Him. When the Di- 
vine Spirit first quickens the dead soul, it is then 
spiritually alive, and here begins the exercises of re- 
pentance. But between this quickening and the time 
when the subject of it obtains peace and hope, a period 
of time elapses, longer or shorter, during which the 
new-born soul is in a state of spiritual infancy — even 
the first stage of infancy. During this period of dark- 
ness, weakness, and comparative spiritual ignorance, 
the sinner's thoughts are exercised chiefly by consider- 
ations drawn from the law ; and in the first stages his 
mind is directed mostly to the justice of the law and its 
most awful penalty — Death, which, if once inflicted, is 



REPENTANCE. 95 

death forever. The mind being enlightened,, he is en- 
abled more correctly to appreciate his dangerous con- 
dition. This prompts him to action ; but in his efforts 
to escape the punishment due to his sins, he resorts 
to ineffectual, and indeed impossible expedients, for 
he seeks to obtain the favor of God by various ob- 
servances and performances, which it is not necessary 
to detail in this place. 

But we will turn to the other branch of the subject. 
The sinner now, for the first time, is able to discover, in 
some degree, the beauty and excellency of holiness, 
for this may be seen in the perfect holiness of the 
law ; and though his attention may be occupied more 
with reflections on the justice and righteous curse of 
the law, yet holiness becomes an object of desire, 
and he sees that it is desirable for its own sake. He 
strives for it, for his heart is drawn in that direction. 
He is now in the right path — the way that leads to 
holiness. This is repentance — true repentance. But 
during this season of trial and anxiety, the mind is in 
a state of confusion and darkness. There is a mixture 
of those feelings of terror and slavish fear which his 
view of the justice of the law produces on the one 
hand; and on the other hand, of those desires of holi- 
ness and reconciliation with God, produced by his 
views of the holiness of the* law. And even if the 
dread of wrath and eternal perdition should engross 
more of his thoughts than the desire of holiness, yet 
this desire is there, a living principle in the heart ; 
and though the former is not spiritual, but the fruit 
of unbelief, the latter is truly spiritual, being the 
fruit of God's implanted grace. Contemplating the 
purity of the Divine character, and in the light of this 
holiness viewing the sinfulness and vileness of his own 
9 



96 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

heart and actions, he is filled with grief, and the 
contrast calls forth many a sigh. He can not see how 
such a holy Being can look upon him with compla- 
cency. His whole desire reaches after the holiness of 
the law ; but all his efforts at conformity fall so im- 
measurably short, that though he will not forego the 
desire nor cease his efforts, yet he is forced to relin- 
quish all hope of success. These are the exercises of 
genuine repentance, for holiness is the object in view. 
But at the same time the justice of the law presses the 
load of guilt upon his conscience, and seems to demand 
satisfaction for his sins, and he sees no sure way to 
avoid the approaching storm. Every expedient to 
which he resorts is no better than if Lot had left 
Sodom and run to Gomorrah, for the justice of the 
law drives him from every false refuge. These dis- 
tresses are not spiritual, for the object is to satisfy the 
justice of the law, which he can never do. He resorts 
to wrong methods to escape the penalty of the law, 
while there is a right method set before him which he 
neglects to pursue. Thus these mixed exercises of 
legal fears and spiritual desires attend the penitent 
sinner, till he is led to Christ, the Savior of sinners. 
Here he finds a secure retreat from the curse of the 
law; and trusting in Him, his conscience is relieved 
of the burden of guilt — j)eace finds way into his heart, 
and hope springs up in his bosom. And now his re- 
pentance is purified from those guilty fears and servile 
labors which polluted it before. But his desire of ho- 
liness and abhorrence of sin are more intense than 
ever, and these are the true characteristics of spiritual 
repentance. This kind of repentance he desires 
should exercise his heart while life shall last; and the 
desire will be realized. The tempest which agitated 



REPENTANCE. 97 

his soul "having passed away, the Sun of Righteousness 
seems to shed the beams of peace on his heart from a 
serene sky. But the clouds are apt to return, after the 
rain; and these alternations of light and darkness, 
hope and fear, will continue to encumber the progress 
of repentance, as well as to mar his peace, for a length 
of time; and in many instances, I think, till the por- 
tals of the temple above are so far opened to his faith, 
as to show him the palm of final victory. 

For the true believer who is set free from the con- 
demnation of the law, is not free from sinful doubts 
and slavish fears. Tf you ask the reason of this, the 
answer is to be found by adverting to these same es- 
sential properties of the Divine law; for though 
free from condemnation, he still retains in himself all 
the original corruptions of the flesh and evil propen- 
sities of his depraved nature. He is also still assaulted 
with the same temptations ; and as he is still under 
the same unchangeable obligation to obey the holy 
requirement of the law, he finds himself inadequate 
to the great performance, and by falling short he con- 
tracts guilt upon the conscience. With this guilt he 
brings himself before the justice of the law. which can 
do nothing but declare the penalty, and inflict it. The 
guilt, therefore, remains on his conscience, and excites 
sinful doubts and slavish fears. But he goes to the 
wrong place. He should never take his guilt to the 
justice of the law, for that will fasten the guilt more 
sorely upon the conscience. Let him go with his 
guilty conscience to the Cross. That, and that only, 
has power to remove guilt. And he must ultimately 
come there, if he would obtain a holy peace. Then he 
can "look upon Him whom he has pierced,, and 
mourn." This is gospel repentance. 



98 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

There are some false notions entertained by some 
persons — probably a great many — with regard to re- 
pentance, which I would be glad to remove. This 
work may not be easily done, because these notions are 
old and deep-rooted ideas in the natural mind, and 
they are not so frequently disturbed by the preacher 
as they ought to be. I can not, therefore, feel quite 
satisfied to dismiss the present subject without an at- 
tempt to eradicate these erroneous conceptions from 
the mind of the reader, if they have entertainment 
there. We are told that pardon is promised to the re- 
penting sinner — that if we repent we shall be forgiven. 
This is true. It is scriptural truth. But if we thence 
infer that repentance is a condition to be performed by 
us, by which we obtain a title to the blessing of pardon, 
the inference is not true, it is not scriptural. It is 
an error, and a mischievous error. This, my dear 
reader, puts you upon the task of working out your 
pardon. Your pardon is not free, which is directly 
contrary to the truth of the gospel. Or (on the same 
principle) you may suppose that repentance is a 
kind of chastisement to which you are required to 
submit as a prerequisite to your receiving remission 
of sins. This is not repentance, it is penance. The 
superstitious devotee of the Eomish delusion will 
scourge himself till the blood runs, or walk barefoot 
on the frozen and pointed rocks, and do ever so much 
more by way of punishing himself for his sin. This he 
calls penance. You say this is absurd and foolish, and 
withal it is sinful. You speak rightly. But he acts 
on the self-same principle that influences you, in sup- 
posing that repentance is a course of suffering that 
you must undergo, as a prerequisite to your receiving 
pardoning mercy. 



REPENTANCE. 99 

That repentance is not a task to be performed by us, 
or a burden laid upon us as a condition upon which we 
obtain forgiveness, is evident upon another consider- 
ation, which, if you have experienced true repentance, 
I think you will be able to apprehend. If you could 
certainly know that G-od had forgiven your sins, you 
would still desire to repent of them, and you would 
still repent of them. Your heart would still be exer- 
cised with sincere sorrow and pious grief that you had 
sinned against the Lord. You would look upon Him 
whom you had pierced, and grieve for your sins. And 
this is as pure spiritual repentance as is ever experi- 
enced by those who love the Lord Jesus. 

.Repentance effects nothing in the matter of our jus- 
tification, for it does not belong to juridical proceed- 
ings. To suppose that by repenting of our sins we 
may deliver ourselves from the punishment legally due 
to our sins, is a great error. The law does not re- 
quire repentance, and will not accept it ; therefore 
the fear of the penalty of the law can not be repent- 
ance. True repentance is not towards hell, but towards 
God, and is an exercise of our love to Him. Neither 
the fears of hell, nor yet the fires of hell, can ever im- 
plant the love of God in the heart. 

Eepentance belongs to the work of sanctification. 
As I said before, the use of repentance is to bring the 
alienated heart of the sinner back to the holiness of 
the law. It is an essential part of that purifying 
process carried on in the heart by the Holy Spirit, 
which we call progressive sanctification. Eepentance 
keeps the conscience of the Christian tender, and 
makes him watchful to avoid sin: and, particularly in 
its first exercises, it prepares the heart of the anxious 
sinner to receive with gratitude and joy the tokens 



100 church-members' hand-rook of theology. 

of God's forgiving grace ; for it provokes no real 
gratitude, and inspires no real joy in the heart of the 
careless, impenitent sinner, to be told that Christ died 
for sinners, and that God is ready to forgive sins for 
His sake; but to the soul that hates sin and grieves 
in his heart for his sins, it is sweeter than music. To 
him it is gospel — good tidings. Repentance also 
keeps in exercise the spirit of prayer. How can we in 
sincerity go to our Heavenly Father and confess our 
sins, if we are not sorry that we have sinned against 
Him? What an empty, heartless confession we should 
make ! Such formal, lifeless confessions are often made, 
no doubt, when we draw near to Him with our lips, 
but our hearts are far from Him. And too often the 
words express much more than the heart feels. But 
there is a desire in every Christian's heart to come to 
God with more in his heart than words can express. 
As examples of penitential prayer, read the fifty- 
first Psalm and that elaborate prayer of the prophet 
Daniel. (See Dan. ix.) These were made on special 
and extraordinary occasions. But as an example of 
the exercises of true repentance, suited to every Chris- 
tian, and at all times, compare your experiences with 
those of the apostle Paul, recorded in the seventh 
chapter of his epistle to the church at Rome. Here 
is a scriptural examj)le which the Holy Spirit has 
given us, by which we may judge of our spiritual 
character and condition. It is true, some learned 
doctors have tried to rob Christians of the edification 
they may derive from this instructive portion of ex- 
perimental instruction ; but I think it is easy to show 
that their interpretation can never be made to 
accord with the word of God. Further, repent- 
ance produces a good effect in subduing our pride — ■ 



REPENTANCE. 101 

both spiritual and natural pride ; and thus, it keeps in 
exercise that lovely grace of humility, one of the 
brightest ornaments of Christian character. All the 
graces of the Spirit are so intimately connected with 
each other, that one can not well be in active exercise 
without promoting the activity of all the others. Our 
love to God manifests itself in repentance, as well as 
in joy; hence repentance and spiritual joy are not 
inconsistent with each other, for both may subsist 
together at the same time. 



102 CHURCH-MEMBEKS' HAND-BOOK OF THEOLOGY. 



CHAPTBE VII. 



JUSTIFICATION. 



Haying engaged your attention to the primary 
graces of the Spirit, I would now have you take a 
view of what may be called covenant blessings. And 
the first of these to which I would direct your at- 
tention is justification. ]STo subject of more impor- 
tance to us can employ our thoughts. We shall all be 
brought, in a coming day, before the tribunal of the 
Judge of all the earth. There we shall hear the doom 
of eternal condemnation, or the sentence of our final 
justification. Then we shall receive the award of 
eternal life, or be consigned to a state of eternal death. 
He that is unholy and unjust will be unholy and un- 
just forever, and he that is righteous and holy will 
remain so forever. How immensely important, then, 
that we see to it, even now, that we are prepared to 
stand before the Judge, not only without dismay, but 
with exceeding joy. And there is a way — however 
guilty we may be, there is a way — whereby we may 
be made to appear faultless before the throne of judg- 
ment. And it is my heart's desire, and shall be my 
earnest endeavor, to set this way before you in the 
clearest light that I possibly can, so that you may 
be able to say with the old patriarch, "Behold now 
I have ordered my cause; I know that I shall be jus- 



J USTIFICATION. 103 

tified." In speaking on this doctrine it is not possi- 
ble to exceed the solemnity of the subject, or to 
clothe it in language beyond what its importance de- 
mands ; but in my judgment simplicity of expression 
is preferable to artificial embellishment. Those over- 
strained efforts at eloquence and poetic sentiment- 
alism which so much characterize the literature of 
the present age, on so solemn a subject as this would 
be rather injurious than beneficial to the student. 
And the subject stands in no need of them. 

Justification is a different thing from election, and 
from adoption, and from sanctification. It is also dif- 
ferent from regeneration and repentance ; and has no 
necessary connection with any of the graces of the Spirit, 
except that one by which we appropriate the blessing 
of justification to ourselves personally. Hence the pro- 
priety of considering this doctrine separately and in- 
dependently of all the other doctrines of the gospel, 
and all the graces of the Spirit, except, as before said, 
the one grace of faith, by which we lay hold, as it 
were, of that which is the matter or ground upon 
which our justification is based. But in this view it 
is necessary that I make a remark on the subject of 
pardon. Some understand pardon and justification to 
be the same thing. I think there is, in some respects, 
a distinction, and I could easily show wherein they 
may be distinguished. But I do not wish to embarrass 
the reader; and as I doubt whether, in making these 
distinctions, I should render any particular service to 
a majority of those for whose edification I am labor- 
ing, I will just say, that he that is justified is also par- 
doned. These blessings are never disjoined. Justifi- 
cation proceeds from God the Judge; pardon comes 
from God the Sovereign. And he that believes in 



104 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

Jesus Christ, has both pardon and justification, and 
receives both in the same way — that is, by faith. 

Justification is a well known and definite term in 
the administration of judicial law; and is applied to a 
person who is arraigned before the court for having 
committed a crime, and on trial it is found that he is 
not guilty, whereupon the judge acquits him — that is, 
he justifies him. Thus the term stands oj^posed to con- 
demnation : "Thou shalt justify the righteous and con- 
demn the wicked." This simple idea, so plain in itself, 
and so easily apprehended, is sufficient to give us a 
clear conception of what justification means. The ac- 
cused person is either condemned or justified. In com- 
mon discourse we more frequently use the word ac- 
quitted ; but whether we say acquitted, or' justified, or 
discharged, we mean the same thing. Without employ- 
ing figures for illustration, we will just say that what- 
ever will satisfy the demand of the law, will justify 
the accused party. But that demand must be satisfied. 
And this fundamental idea should be kept constantly 
in view in all our discussions and investigations of the 
subject of justification. 

Whatever the nature of the law may be — whether it 
be Divine or human, whether moral or positive, 
whether it requires little or much — that which will 
fully satisfy its demands will justify him who is under 
the particular law by which he is to be judged, and 
nothing else will do it ; so that there is but one plea 
that will justify under any law, and that one plea will 
justify under every variety of law, and will apply to 
every variety of accusation. 

]STow, happily, Ave have a word in our language that 
will express that plea. That word is righteousness. 
This word, when used in reference to judicial law, 



JUSTIFICATION. 105 

comprehends all that that law can require, and will 

meet the law successfully in every point. 

The word righteous, in common discourse, is often 
used in a general and indefinite sense, in which it has 
a comparative meaning, and is used in this compara- 
tive sense in many places in the Scriptures. But when 
used in a judicial sense, it is a word of absolute and 
determinate meaning, and admits of no modification ; 
and it is in its strict judicial signification that we 
use it in its application to justification. 

Viewing the subject in this light, we see just what 
a man must have that he may be justified by any law 
before which he may be arraigned; he must have a 
righteousness, such a righteousness as that particular 
law requires ; and that which will constitute such a 
righteousness is a perfect obedience to all the require- 
ments of the law. Nothing short of a perfect obedi- 
ence will answer the purpose. For if in any thing he 
fails — if his obedience is not absolutely perfect — it can 
not support the plea of righteousness, which is the 
only plea that will justify him before the law. Thus, 
when we shall stand before God in judgment, if we 
have not a positive righteousness consisting of a per- 
fect obedience to His holy law, our condemnation is 
certain — is inevitable. 

I am not skillful in constructing figures for illus- 
tration, but as I am very desirous that you should 
understand this important subject as clearly as pos- 
sible, I will submit to your consideration a few ex- 
amples, presenting the subject in different points of 
view. But I request you to keep in mind the par- 
ticular point now immediately under discussion — that 
is, a righteousness that will satisfy law, and conse- 
quently will justify him who has the righteousness; 



106 church-members' hand-book of theology. . 

or, in other words, the question may be stated thus : 
What kind of obedience will constitute a justifying 
righteousness? for we can have no salvation without 
it. 

The first example I will offer is the obedience of 
Moses on a special occasion. The Lord showed him 
the pattern of a tabernacle which He would have 
built, and said to him, "See that thou make all 
things according to the pattern showed to thee in the 
mount." This commandment was God's law to Moses 
(in that particular case). And Moses made all things 
according to the pattern. This was his obedience — ■ 
a perfect obedience — and therefore a perfect right- 
eousness under that law — a justifying righteousness. 
If Moses had disobeyed any number of other com- 
mands, and had incurred the penalties of disobedi- 
ence annexed to them, yet he was righteous and jus- 
tified so far as that, one law extended. 

I will take a second example from the case of King 
Saul, when God, b}" his prophet Samuel, commanded 
him to go and utterly destro}^ the Amelekites, with 
their flocks and herds, and every thing they possessed. 
This command was the law under which Saul was to 
act, and which he was under obligation to obey. 
Nothing was left to his discretion. Saul went with his 
army and made the whole country a scene of desola- 
tion. But he spared Agag the king, and reserved the 
best of the flocks and herds (as he said) for sacrifices 
to the Lord, and returned victorious to Gilgal. When 
called to account by the prophet, he said, "I have per- 
formed the commandment of the Lord." Here we 
have Saul's plea — he pleads obedience. But his obe- 
dience was not perfect ; it fell short of the whole 
requirement, and therefore was not righteousness. 



JUSTIFICATION. 107 

So far as his compliance with the law extended, it 
might be well enough, but he did not execute the 
whole commandment, and it was not a perfect obedi- 
ence. We may properly speak of an imperfect obedi- 
ence, but in strictness of language it is not proper to 
speak of an imperfect righteousness, in a judicial sense, 
for it is a self-contradiction, and therefore an impossi- 
bility. Saul's obedience coming short of perfection, 
did not amount to a righteousness, and consequently 
would not justify him. It would seem, indeed, that 
if any excuse could be admitted, SauTs was as good as 
any excuse could be, for his object was to serve the 
Lord, which was in itself a religious duty. But no 
excuse is admissible; there must be a punctual ful- 
fillment of the whole law, or the plea of righteousness 
can not be supported. Saul failed to perform a per- 
fect obedience, and the Judge of Israel pronounced 
sentence against him — he lost the kingdom. And how 
many thousands there are in these days that hope to 
obtain the kingdom of heaven, while they know that 
they have not performed a perfect obedience to the 
Divine law, and therefore hare not an acceptable 
righteousness! Their sincere desires, their honest 
endeavors, and their good intentions may all be well 
enough, so far as they go, but they come far short of 
a perfect righteousness ; and for want of this, in the 
judgment-day they will be doomed to eternal ban- 
ishment. 

Being solicitous that you should form as clear and 
correct a view of this important subject as possible, I 
must call your attention to it in another point of view, 
which I will attempt to exemplify by the law of Jero- 
boam, the son of Nebat. King Jeroboam commanded 
his subjects, the ten tribes of Israel, to worship the 



108 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

calves which he had set up in Bethel and Dan, and 
they obeyed his order ; " they willingly walked after 
the commandment." They (the people generally) 
rendered a perfect obedience to this law of Jeroboam, 
and their perfect obedience was a righteousness suffi- 
cient to justify them before that law. But they were 
under God's law also, and their obedience to their king 
was a most flagrant act of disobedience to the Divine 
law: their obligation to the Divine law was para- 
mount, and they should have disregarded the law of 
the king; and like the three Hebrew children an- 
swered the king of Babylon, they should have said to 
Jeroboam, "Be it known unto thee, O king! we trill 
not." Before the tribunal of Jeroboam they had a 
righteousness which would justify them, but this very 
righteousness would condemn them at the bar of God. 
So will it be with every one of the many thousands 
who are very punctual to observe the prescriptions of 
their church, or the teachings of the ministers when 
the} T are not in accordance with the word of God. 
You have the word of God. which shows you His will, 
and the way by which you may obtain justification in 
His sight, and if you choose to follow the teaching of 
the Church, or any other prescriptive authority, it is 
at your peril, and " be sure your sin will find you out." 
But this example may be applied also in auother point 
of view, still illustrating the same fundamental princi- 
ple. There is reason to fear that many flatter them- 
selves with the idea that if they are honest and just 
in all their dealings with others; if they injure no 
one in person, or property, or reputation ; if they 
abide by the truth, and are peaceable and generous; 
if they do their duty to their family and relatives ; if 
they fulfill all political and social obligations ; and es- 



JUSTIFICATION. 109 

pecially if, in addition to all this, they abstain from 
the grosser vices — with all this in their behalf, they 
will surely escape condemnation. But let such a one 
consider that if he should come up to the full measure 
of doing in all things to others as he would they 
should do to him, and of loving his neighbor as him- 
self, he would still be under obligation to love God 
with all his heart ; and except he has a righteousness 
that will satisfy both of these demands, he can not stand 
approved before G-od in judgment. 

In order to exemplify an important principle in re- 
spect to justification, I will engage }^our attention for 
a few moments to the first introduction of sin into our 
moral world. It is not my intention to enter into the 
subject of our relations to Adam, but merely to use 
the facts as they are recorded, for the purpose of illus- 
tration. When Adam was created and became a liv- 
ing soul, the Creator pronounced him good, which He 
would not have done if Adam had not been perfectly 
holy according to his created nature. This could not 
have been said of him in truth if he had been in any 
respect or in any degree unholy. 

That Adam was a subject of the moral law, I have no 
doubt ; but he was in no danger of violating that law, 
for the spirit of the moral law was in his heart — he 
delighted in it — it was his glory and his joy. It was 
the law of his nature, as well as a law to his will. He 
loved it so well that he could have no disposition to 
transgress, and therefore was morally incapable of 
violating it ; and he would have continued to be out 
of danger of disobeying this law, if he had obeyed 
another law — a positive law — which imposed an obli- 
gation upon him. I have adverted to Adam's relation 
to the moral law, not for the purpose of making any 



110 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

use of it in this place, but that you may keep it en- 
tirely out of mind in our present illustration. 

That special law to which I now direct your notice 
was that which prohibited the use of the fruit of a 
certain tree. The law was this : " Thou shalt not eat 
of it." Nothing can be more simple, plain, and defi- 
nite than this law. Every child understands it. So 
long as Adam forbore to eat, he rendered a perfect 
obedience to this law, and of course had a perfect 
righteousness in his relation to it that would justify 
him, and save him from the penalty. It was the only 
law that could bring its authority to bear upon his 
will; and so far as it respected his physical ability, it 
was easier for Adam to obey than to disobey. Thus 
he stood justified in his own perfect righteousness. 
But Adam transgressed — he disobeyed — and by that 
one act of disobedience he lost his righteousness, and 
lost it forever. For j~ou know that that which is past 
can not be recalled. The deed once done, can not be 
undone. Hence it was an impossibility for him to re- 
cover his lost righteousness. It is not necessary in 
this place to notice any connection that the loss of 
this righteousness has with the moral law, but I will 
only say that, having lost this righteousness, he lost 
with it the favor of God. If, then, he should ever re- 
cover the Divine favor, it must be through some other 
medium ; he must have righteousness in some other 
way, for it is impossible for him to recover his former 
innocence. And the particular point that we should 
notice is, that a righteousness under any law, when 
once lost, is lost forever. This principle applies to 
all law. 

The preceding examples illustrate the following 
fundamental principles : 



JUSTIFICATION. Ill 

1. A perfect obedience constitutes a perfect right- 
eousness under any law, and will therefore justify. 

2. A partial or imperfect obedience, however nearly 
it may approach perfection, can not amount to right- 
eousness and therefore will not justify. 

3. A perfect obedience to one law is not righteous- 
ness under any other law that may hold authority 
over us ; or a righteousness before one law, will not 
justify under another law. 

4. A righteousness under any law, when once lost, 
can never be regained by obedience to that law. 

Although I have detained you so long on these ex- 
amples, I must beg your indulgence and claim your 
attention to one more, because it brings into view an 
important principle which obtains in the matter and 
manner of our justification. 

Ahasuerus, king of Persia, ordained a law that who- 
soever, man or woman, should come into his presence 
in the inner court unbidden, should be put to death. 
Esther, the queen, on a very urgent occasion, resolved 
to enter the chamber without being called. Accord- 
ingly she made the perilous adventure,. and the mo- 
ment she passed the door she was under condemnation. 
She had disobeyed the king's law, and might, accord- 
ing to law, have been sent to immediate execution. 
She had no righteousness that could satisfy the king's 
law ; she was guilty and not righteous. She might, 
indeed, have pled the urgency and great importance 
of her object, but that could not justify under that 
law, for the law had made no provision for such cases. 
If. when she had entered, she had immediately re- 
turned before she had advanced three paces, it would 
have been of no avail; the righteousness which she 
had before the deed was done, and would have justi- 
10 



112 CHURCH-MEMBERS HAND-BOOK OF THEOLOGY. 

fied her under that particular law of the king, was 
gone and lost forever. But the king had also ordained 
a constitution by which the execution of that law 
might be dispensed with. If he held out his golden 
scepter to one who had transgressed, the penalty was 
instantly removed. This scepter was extended to 
Esther, and she approached and touched the gracious 
symbol. That moment her life was safe ; she was be- 
yond clanger. She had a righteousness now, under a 
different constitution, that delivered her from the law 
that stood against her. She had not that righteousness 
which consisted in obedience to the king's prohibition j 
but we find here the superinduction of a righteous- 
ness by the king's grace, which answered all the de- 
mands of the king's law, and by it Queen Esther was 
justified before the king's throne. Now let us suppose 
that Hainan, the queen's bitter enemy, had brought 
an accusation against her, alleging that she had trans- 
gressed the king's commandment, and had incurred 
the penalty of death; what defense could she have 
made? The charge would have been true, and she 
could not deny it. But she might say, I did disobey 
the king's law, and forfeit my life; but I touched the 
golden scepter — this is my plea. I do not look to my 
obedience for justification, but I look to the king's 
most gracious scepter ; and I bid defiance to Haman, 
and to all the realms of the king. Thus we see, that 
though a man may not have a righteousness that will 
justify him before a particular law, and that it may be 
impossible for him to obtain such a justifying right- 
eousness, yet there may be, by the intervention of a 
different constitution, a way whereby he may obtain 
a righteousness that will remove the penalty he has 
incurred, and avail for his justification. 



JUSTIFICATION. 113 

Keeping in view the principles of law exemplified 
in the foregoing remarks, we will endeavor to bring 
them to bear on our relation to God as subjects of His 
law. And it is hardly necessary to remind you that 
the law by which we must be judged, and by which 
we will either be condemned or justified, is that which 
we usually denominate the moral laic. The substance 
of this law we find set forth in the ten commandments. 
Great pains have been taken by many to teach chil- 
dren at an early age to repeat these precepts by mem- 
ory, while at the same time little or no care has been 
taken to make them understand their extensive im- 
port, or the sacredness of the obligation thus imposed 
upon them, or the fearful consequence which disobedi- 
ence will entail upon the transgressor. Hence there 
are multitudes who give themselves very little concern 
about these things, and scarcely feel their account- 
ability. They seldom reflect that this holy law holds 
its authority over every action, every word, and every 
thought of their whole life. This is truly a solemn 
reflection ; but the solemnity of the subject should not 
repress our inquiries, but impel us to so much the 
greater earnestness and diligence, in proportion to 
the magnitude of the interests involved in it. Let us 
beware that we do not shun the light, and, from 
dread of the consequences, hide the truth from our 
eyes. It is much better that we should know the 
worst that can and must come, lest a vain and un- 
warranted hope of security should induce us to neglect 
the only remedy that will answer our desperate neces- 
sity. 

The ten commands before referred, to may be re- 
duced to two: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God 
with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all 



114 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

thy strength, and with all thy mind : and thy neigh- 
bor as thyself." This epitome of the Divine law is 
warranted by our Savior himself, and it shows the 
spiritual nature and the great extent of the obliga- 
tion ; all which we must bring into the account, if we 
would know our true character and condition, as we 
stand related to its requirements and its sanctions. 
But, as I have said in a preceding part of this work, 
the whole requirement of the law is comprehended in 
one short sentence : " Be ye holy, for I the Lord thy 
God am holy." What, now, does your conscience say 
to this comprehensive obligation ? Are you ready for 
the judgment ? You must be prepared to meet this 
demand. Nothing less than positive, perfect holiness 
will be accepted. Measure your obedience by this 
rule, and say whether you have a righteousness every 
way equal to this perfect and comprehensive requisi- 
tion ; if you have not, there is no alternative. There 
is nothing before you but a fearful looking for of 
judgment and fiery indignation. The law is absolute, 
and will not — nay, can not show mercy. The law can 
and will curse, but it can not bless; it must give death 
to the transgressor, but it can not give life. The law 
being just, it is its proper office to dispense justice to 
all ; but it can not be a medium of mercy to the sin- 
ner — it will "by no means acquit the guilty." 

Let us cast a broad look upon this law for a few 
moments. It is well worth the while, and you may 
never repent the time thus employed. This law is 
perfect in holiness, and is the fundamental principle 
from which all holiness in created beings is derived. 
As I have said before, it is the manifestation or ex- 
pression of the glory of the Divine nature. By this 
law the Creator shows to us the holiness of His char- 



JUSTIFICATION. 115 

acter, that we may know how to conform our charac- 
ter to His. Just so far as we have the likeness of 
God in the holiness of His character, we also resemble 
Him in all His moral perfections. The law is also 
a declaration of His holy will in relation to us; and, 
indeed, to all His creatures that are capable of un- 
derstanding His will. Hence the obligation to be 
holy rests upon every intelligent being in creation. 
Satan, with all his apostate crew, though they are so 
depraved that they never will be holy, and will 
never desire to be so, are, notwithstanding, bound in 
duty under this law to be perfectly holy. And this 
obligation arises from the fact that they are intelli- 
gent creatures, and possess a moral nature. And the 
angels in heaven, which were created holy, and have 
preserved their holy character till now, and probably 
will maintain their holiness forever, are, for the same 
reason, under obligation to be perfectly conformed to 
the requirements of this holy law. And they are no 
more bound nor any less bound by it than the 
devils are. No change of condition or of moral charac- 
ter can in the least degree affect this obligation. 
Adam, who was created an intelligent being, and en- 
dowed with a moral nature, and who was perfectly 
holy in his created nature, was under obligation, by 
this law, to maintain intact his holy character in the 
sight of God. When he sinned he lost his holiness, 
and a change took place, both in his moral nature 
and in his relation to God; but there was no change 
in his obligation to be holy and to perfectly fulfill 
the holy requirement of this law. Furthermore, we 
ourselves are unholy in our nature, as all men must 
know, yet God says to us, "Be ye holy;" and if we 
fail, we shall learn in due time whether He speaks in 



116 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

vam. And if by the almighty grace of the Divine 
Spirit a hoi} 7 nature should be given to us, and we 
should eventually be perfectly sanctified, both in soul 
and body, and so stand in absolute unblemished holi- 
ness in His presence, we shall not then be released 
from the authority of this law, nor will the obligation 
be in the smallest degree relaxed or abated. Any 
change diminishing the obligation of this law would 
require a corresponding change in the character of the 
law itself; any change in the character of the law 
would necessarily involve a corresponding change in 
the character of the Lawgiver. 

A doctrine has been advanced, that the moral law, 
being too severe, and requiring more of man than he 
is able to perform, has been repealed, and a milder 
law has been substituted in its place, prescribing 
duties which are not beyond the moral abilities of 
man to comply with. It is not alleged that the pen- 
alty of this new iaw is less severe, but some affirm 
that it is even more severe than the penalty of the 
moral law. Now, whatever may be the duties pre- 
scribed by any law, the obligation to obedience must 
be imperative, otherwise it is no law. The extent 
of the obligation must be equal to the extent of the 
duties required; -therefore, there can not be any 
mitigation of the obligation, whether the law requires 
little or much. It is not claimed that the obligation 
to obedience is less sacred and imperative, but it is 
held that the duties imposed by this new law are not 
so severe, so rigid, so extreme, as our duly to the 
moral law ; so that the duties enjoined are brought 
within the compass of man's moral ability, in his 
present state of moral imperfection. 

Now the moral law requires perfect holiness; and 



JUSTIFICATION. 117 

if this new and milder law does not require perfect 
holiness, it follows inevitably that it, in its own 
nature, is not perfectly holy. And if we assume that 
God has given a law that is not perfectly holy, how 
is it possible to vindicate the perfect holiness of the 
Divine character? His law must be an expression of 
His will in respect to us as His subjects. And must 
we believe that because we are unholy, a holy God 
has given us a law to accommodate our unholiness, 
and thus tolerate, or rather sanction, our alienation 
from His holy character? If this does not necessarily 
imply unholiness in. the will of God, I would like that 
some one would show the reason. And it is indis- 
putable that if the will of God is not holy. He is not 
holy Himself. A sincere and habitual desire after 
holiness, is the distinguishing characteristic of the 
renewed heart. The sincere and enlightened Chris- 
tian desires to be perfectly holy, and cherishes the 
pleasing hope that a time will come when this desire ' 
shall be consummated ; but if this desire shall be re- 
alized, he will be more holy than any law of God 
requires him to be, and the desire goes beyond the 
will of God. 

It would seem unnecessary to say any thing more 
to expose the inconsistency and absurdity of this 
scheme of law ; but as such an arrangement would 
be quite congenial to that spirit of self-righteousness 
which is in every natural heart, and which, indeed, 
it is so difficult to eradicate even from the renewed 
heart, I will oifer a few additional thoughts on the 
subject. If the moral law is perfectly just and good, 
why should it be abrogated? If it is not perfectly 
just and good, why was.it ever ordained? It is not 
out of place to inquire also, When was this new law 



118 CHURCH- MEMBERS' HAND-BOOK OF THEOLOGY. 

given? We can not find it on record. And what is 
the specific requirement of this new law? If be- 
cause of the present moral imperfection of human 
nature it does not require perfect holiness, but will 
be satisfied with something less, it would appear to 
follow that it requires just so much holiness as our 
innate love of sin w^ill permit us to render or enable 
us to acquire, and hence it tolerates the love of sin. 
Furthermore, how are we to be justified under this 
law ? If we are to be justified by our obedience to 
this new law, then, without controversy, we are, to all 
intents and purposes, justified by the works of the law. 
But in the meantime faith is made void, so far as jus- 
tification is concerned. I might enlarge to a much 
greater extent on this subject, and expose its falsity 
by other arguments, but I deem it unnecessary, for in 
every point of light in w^hich we can view the scheme 
it is full of inconsistency and absurdity. It has no 
foundation in Scripture, and it reflects most injuriously 
on the holiness and justice of the Divine character. 

When the Scripture says we are not under the law, 
but under grace, we are not to understand that the 
law has no authority over us, and that we are under 
no obligation to obey its precepts. There are two 
senses in which we are not under the law^, and both 
of them are of very great importance: 1. The believer 
is not under the penalty of the law — he is not exposed 
to its curse — he is no longer under its condemnation : 
" There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them who 
are in Christ Jesus." 2. He is not under the law as a 
covenant of life. His acceptance with God does not 
depend on his obedience to the law. It is his rule of 
duty, but not a condition of life. His justification does 
not depend on his obedience to the law. These two 



JUSTIFICATION. 119 

principles should never be lost sight of, if we would 
understand the doctrine of justification. We shall 
have frequent occasion to advert to these principles 
as we proceed. 

But at present I must remind you that the obliga- 
tion to a perfect obedience is perpetual ; it can never 
cease, nor can its authority be suspended for a 
moment. The Author of the law is ever the same 
unchangeable God; and if the law were to change, it 
would no longer be a true representation of the Divine 
character, and therefore could not answer the purpose 
for which it was ordained. 

This law requires that every thing we do should 
be done from a principle of love to God. This 
is manifest from the fact that the spirit of the law is, 
" Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy 
heart, and mind, and soul, and strength." The good 
Lord has placed us here in this world, in circum- 
stances in which we possess and enjoy man}' rational 
satisfactions and lawful gratifications; but these are all 
to be enjoyed from a principle of love to God — with 
gratitude to Him as the Giver — in subordination to 
His will, and with a view to His glory. The various 
relations in which we stand to the human family, and 
other things of His making, devolve Upon us many 
relative duties, all of which we are to perform from a 
principle of love to God, and with a view to His 
glory. Many of these duties are congenial to our 
moral nature — such as loving our parents, our chil- 
dren, our near kindred and friends — sympathizing with 
the afflicted, and relieving the distressed ; and it 
gives us a sincere pleasure to exercise these affections, 
and to perform these kind offices, and thus doing what 
we well can to promote their welfare and happiness — ■ 
11 



120 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

all which is right — but it does not fulfill the law 
unless there is in it the element of love to God. and a 
desire to do His will, that His Name may be glorified. 
In all that we do for ourselves, in all our transac- 
tions with others, in all our social intercourse with 
friends and acquaintances, with strangers and ene- 
mies, we are to have an eye fixed steadfastly on the 
will of God; and a desire to do those things which 
are pleasing in His sight must have a supreme influ- 
ence. j^Ioreover, we are not to utter a word with our 
tongues that He will not approve; for we have to 
give account of every word that we speak, and all our 
words will be judged by this law ; and if they have 
not in them the spirit of holiness, the law will condemn 
them. And not only this, but the law takes knowl- 
edge of the thoughts and intents of the heart, and ex- 
tends its authority over all the exercises of the mind. 
Every desire and emotion of the heart, and every 
thought of the imagination must be perfectly holy, 
and exercised in the love of God. And yet further, all 
this holy and spiritual obedience must be performed 
willingly, cheerfully, and we must delight in it. It 
must be our chief pleasure to do the will of God. To 
obey reluctantly and unwillingly would be highly of- 
fensive in His sight. We must not be pleased with any 
thing that does not please Him, but we must hold in 
aversion every thing in which He does not delight. 
And all must be dene continually and unceasingly, 
without a moment's intermission or relaxation, from 
the beginning of your life to the end of your days. 

I have thus briefly, though very imperfectly, set be- 
fore you the extensive obligation and stringent claims 
of that law by which you will be judged, and which 
you must perfectly obey, or death is the penalty, and 



JUSTIFICATION. 121 

everlasting punishment must ensue. Do the terms 
appear to be severe? Is it a hard service? I know 
you feel like the condition is too rigorous, and that 
compliance is utterly impracticable ; that it would 
make your life intolerable and almost insupportable 
to be thus bound down to such strict observances, and 
perpetually confined to a perfect conformity with a 
rule that is beyond all the moral powers of man to sat- 
isfy. And perhaps it is so ; but it is God's law, and 
you are bound to a perfect obedience, or you can never 
have a righteousness of your own that will screen you 
from the vengeance of God. Many will openly object 
to a law that requires so much self-denial, and say 
that it binds men in the chains of a moral despotism. 
But I entreat you not to impeach the justice, or even 
the goodness of the Lawgiver. Perhaps you are not 
aware of all that your objection implies. There i& 
something involved in your objection that it is proba- 
ble you have never once thought of, and that you 
would be almost ashamed to avow, but which you can 
not avoid without renouncing your objection. This 
objection is just equivalent to saying that you love sin 
so much better than you love holiness, that you deem 
it a hardshil) to be debarred the privilege of being un- 
holy. You can make nothing else of it, Will you 
avow the principle? To avow it, is to say that you do 
not believe that God is as holy as He declares Himself 
to be ; or, if He is, He ought not to be. You must not 
dissemble or prevaricate. If you regard the law as a 
hard master, you must sa}^ explicitly that you would 
rather serve Satan than serve God. But there is yet 
much more involved in it which it is probable you 
have never properly considered. If you were as holy 
as the law requires, you would be the holiest and hap- 



122 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

piest being upon this earth. And is it a hard law that 
insures you happiness through all time and forever? 
All the means of happiness which this world contains 
combined, could not make you the hundredth part 
as happy as a perfect conformity to this law. Thus, 
when the Lord gives you the means of being incon- 
ceivably happy, you loathe it, and call it a severe and 
intolerable condition. Neither is this all; if you would 
faithfully and punctually fulfill this law, you would be 
the most honorable character in all this world— the 
glory of kings and conquerors, of statesmen and phi- 
losophers, would be as nothing compared with the high 
distinction to which you would be exalted. And your 
heart is ready to complain of the extreme demands 
of a law which is a manifestation of the goodness of 
God to His creatures! But whether you are satisfied 
with it or dissatisfied — whether its demands are mod- 
erate or excessive, it is the law by which you must be 
judged ; and if you have not rendered a perfect obedi- 
ence to its whole requirement — if you are not as holy 
as this law is, you are totally destitute of a righteous- 
ness that will save you from its burning curses. You 
can not be justified ; you must endure .the ministra- 
tion of its eternal condemnation ; for without a right- 
eousness that is as holy as this law, God will never 
say, " Let the prisoner go free." I think I may safely 
challenge you to call to remembrance any one action 
of your whole life, or any one thought of your mind, 
in which love to God was the reigning principle, and 
a sincere desire to please and honor Him was the ruling 
motive in your view ; and if not, your whole life has 
been one continual course of sinfulness. How, then, 
can you be justified wheuyou have no righteousness — ■ 
not even a partial righteousness to save you from 



JUSTIFICATION. 123 

condemnation ? And without one that is perfect and 
immaculate in the sight of God, your condemnation is 
certain — is inevitable. 

But in respect of our justification, it is altogether 
sufficient for my present purpose if you have been 
guilty of one sin — only one: that one will as effectually 
cut you off from all possibility of being justified by 
obedience to the law as ten thousand. One sin insures 
your inevitable condemnation. If you have committed 
one sin, even the least, you are a guilty sinner before 
God, and, therefore, utterly destitute of any righteous- 
ness that can avail you in the judgment, and by which 
you can escape the damnation of hell. 

It is well in this place to hear what God himself 
has testified on this subject. He has decided the case 
beyond debate : " There is none righteous, no, not 
one." " That every mouth may be stopped, and all 
the world become guilty before God." ki So that death 
passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." " Judg- 
ment came upon all men to condemnation." " For all 
have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." If 
these plain and unequivocal declarations from God's 
own mouth are not sufficient to show you the attitude 
in which you stand before His law, it w r ould be useless 
to appeal to reason. It is too plain to be overlooked, 
that no man has a righteousness that will justify him 
in the sight of that law by which we must all be 
judged. 

As, therefore, our case is thus desperate, and it is 
impossible for us to attain to righteousness by any 
thing that we can do, it becomes a matter of the first 
importance to inquire whether there is any other way 
by which we can obtain such a righteousness as will 
fully answer our extreme necessity; and the Script- 



124 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

ures give us an answer of peace. Such a righteous- 
ness has been provided. Let us consider what the 
ease requires. Two things are indispensably requisite 
to constitute a justifying righteousness for sinners : 
the first is a perfect fulfillment of all that the precept 
requires; the second is a satisfaction for the sins com- 
mitted — for nothing will satisfy the law except the 
penalty for transgression is inflicted. Without this, 
all else that could be done would avail nothing ; for 
the Lord Jesus has said the heavens and the earth 
should pass away before one jot or tittle of the law 
should fail, but all must be fulfilled. It follows, then, 
that the penalty must be inflicted on the transgressor, 
or on an adequate substitute. This all-sufficient and 
acceptable substitute we have in the person of the Son 
of God. If He has rendered a perfect obedience to the 
precepts of the law, and has suffered the whole pen- 
alty for our transgressions, what more is needed to 
constitute a perfect righteousness ? If the holy life of 
Tesus Christ and His obedience unto death w T ill not 
satisfy the law, the sinner has no remedy. It is a 
pleasing employment to review those passages in the 
word of G-od which bear so distinctly on the subject 
of a sinner's justification : " Christ hath redeemed us 
from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. 1 ' 
" He was made under the law that He might redeem 
them that were under the law." It was not necessary 
that He should be made (or born) of a woman, in 
order to His being under obligation to obey the pre- 
3ept ; for if he had been made of the original dust of 
the earth, He would have been under that obligation 
as far as it was possible for Him to be under obliga- 
tion at all ; but it was necessary that He should be 
made of a woman, that He might be one with us, and, 



JUSTIFICATION. 125 

as such, a proper substitute for us; and it was also 
necessary that He should be made under the penalty 
of the law, that the law might not be turned out of its 
own proper and legitimate course in finding a compe- 
tent and legitimate substitute and surety, and in that 
character redeem us from the curse. "In Him was no 
sin," but He was holy, harmless, and undefiled. Was 
not this all that was required as a perfect obedience 
to the precept? And as death was the penalty, and 
He died for our sins, was not this all that the penalty 
of the law required? A perfect obedience to the com- 
mandment was all that the holiness of the law required ; 
and the death of Christ was all that the justice of the 
law claimed. Hence, then, here is a perfect obedience 
to the law in its whole demand upon the sinner; and 
as righteousness consists in giving the law all that it 
demands, what better righteousness can a sinner need? 
If the commandment says, " Do all this" and Christ 
has done all ; and if the penalty says to the trans- 
gressor, " Thou shalt die," and Christ has died, the 
just for the unjust, I would ask. TVhat more would you 
have? The law asks no more, and you should want no 
more. In Christ dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead 
bodily, and He offered Himself without spot unto God 
as a sacrifice for our sins, and if He is not an adequate 
substitute for sinners it is vain to hope for one. If I 
entertained a doubt of it I would instantly drop my 
pen. For ail the perfections and excellencies that per- 
tain to created and uncreated existencies are found in 
Him in all their infinite fullness; and if His holy life 
and obedience unto death do not constitute a right- 
eousness that will satisfy the law and justify sinners, it 
is not possible to satisfy the law, and we are yet in our 
sins, and must remain forever in a state of condemna- 



126 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

tion. But let us remember that He against whom we 
have sinned has said, " The Lord is well pleased for 
His righteousness' sake." And again, " This is my 
beloved Son, in Him I am well pleased." If the of- 
fended God is well pleased, surely we ought to be 
satisfied. Thank God I am well pleased, too ! When I 
have such a substitute I can not fear insufficiency. 
" But now the righteousness of God without the law is 
manifested, being witnessed by the law and the proph- 
ets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith 
of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that be 
lieve ; for there is no difference: for all have sinned 
and come short of the glory of God ; being .justified 
freely by His grace through the redemption that is in 
Christ Jesus : whom God hath set forth to be a propi- 
tiation through faith in his blood." In considering 
this wonderful exhibition of gospel truth it will be 
necessary to anticipate, in some measure, certain points 
which are yet before us, and belong to a different 
branch of doctrine ; but they are truths, the impor- 
tance of which can not be overestimated. And I ask 
your particular attention to the first clause in the fore- 
going quotation. You will recollect that I have shown 
you the impossibility of acquiring a righteousness by 
obedience to a law when that law has been once vi- 
olated ; and now being cut off from all possibility of 
justification by the sentence of the law, we are now 
inquiring for a righteousness in some other way. The 
text now under consideration brings this to light in 
the clearest manner that } r ou can desire or conceive : 
"But now the righteousness of God without the law is 
manifested." The law condemns us, and it can show 
us no favor; but we need not ask any favor of it. 
Here is a righteousness manifested which places us in- 



JUSTIFICATION. 127 

dependent of the law. There is no need that you 
should perform one act of obedience to the law in 
order to obtain a justifying righteousness. And I must 
remind you, if you make one act of your obedience 
to the law necessary to your acceptance with God, 
you assume to fulfill all that the law requires ; even 
though it should be a religious duty of any kind, if 
you perform it with a view to your acceptance with 
God, you thereby devolve upon yourself the obliga- 
tion to fulfill ail that the law requires— even to be 
perfectly holy; for it is a work of law, and brings you 
under the curse: "For as many as are of the works 
of the law are under the curse." "If righteousness 
come by the law, Christ is dead in vain." By doing 
one work that you may obtain righteousness in the 
sight of God, you virtually subscribe to the covenant 
of works ; and by works you must gain eternal life, or 
you can never have life. But as God has openly 
showed 3'ou a righteousness which is altogether with- 
out your works, you should seek to obtain that right- 
eousness, and renounce all other. Let me state to you 
a fundamental truth — a truth which I would have you 
keep in perpetual remembrance: If you want a justi- 
•fying righteousness, you must renounce all your own 
righteousness, and depend wholly upon the righteous- 
ness of Christ; or you must utterly renounce and re- 
ject the righteousness of Christ, and depend alone 
upon your own. " The righteousness of God." The 
text speaks of " the righteousness of God " — then it is 
not of man. Our obedience has nothing to do in the 
matter. It is the righteousness of God, because He 
provided it and He bestows it; and as He provided 
it for sinners, we know that He will accept it and be 
satisfied with it ; for He would not provide a righteous- 



128 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

ness for us that would not be pleasing in His own 
eyes. And it was provided expressly for sinners, who 
have no righteousness of their own, and it would be 
of no use to any but sinners ; and if you have diso- 
beyed the law of your God, and are therefore a sinner, 
it is as free for you, and as much within your reach, 
as it is for any other sinner. Whether you are, in your 
own view, a great sinner comparatively, or whether, 
comparatively, a small one, can make no difference, 
because the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from all 
sin. And this righteousness is "unto all and upon 
all them that believe ; " " being justified freely by His 
grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." 
Here we have brought to our view, in the plainest 
form, the ground upon which our justification is based. 
This shows what that righteousness of God is in which 
we are graciously accepted, and on account of which 
we are justified — it is the redemption that is in Christ 
Jesus. He having redeemed us from the curse of the 
law, the condemnation is removed ; and the condemna- 
tion being removed, the sinner stands justified through 
that redemption which removed the curse. 

There is scarcely more common error among men 
than the notion that, because one man is practically a 
much greater and more wicked sinner than another, he 
is therefore farther removed from that righteousness 
which justifies sinners ; that because he is compara- 
tively a much greater sinner, his case is proportion- 
ally more desperate. But this idea is far from being 
true. It might and would be true if justification de- 
pended, in whole or in part, upon our obedience or our 
personal goodness; but as we are justified freely by 
His grace, there can be no difference. It may be ad- 
mitted that if both remain under the law, the pun- 



JUSTIFICATION. 129 

ishment of the one will be greater than that of the 
other, because they are dealt with on principles of law, 
which rewards every man according to his work. 
But justification is wholly of grace, irrespective of the 
demerits of the sinner. The same perfect righteousness 
which justifies one, justifies also the other. It is given 
to both on the same principle — that is, freely by grace; 
and is received by both in the same way — by faith. 
'•Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through 
faith in His blood." This righteousness which is ; 'of 
God through faith in Jesus Christ," will cover any 
number of sins, and nothing else will cover one sin. 
Say not, "If I had not sinned so much, or, if I had 
not lived in sin so long, I might have hope;" for there 
is no difference be ween a sinner of a hundred years 
old and a sinner of ten years old. As with the great- 
est, so with the least. 

I had intended to notice other texts of the same im- 
port with those I have quoted, and to make such re- 
marks on them as the subject would suggest; but why 
should I add any more? I could easily refer to a great 
many, but as I have yet to show hoic this perfect 
righteousness may be obtained, so as for the sinner to 
have the benefit of it, I shall necessarily bring some 
of them into view as I proceed. 

If you have attentively considered what has been 
said on this subject, you must be convinced that Christ, 
by dying for sinners, has made " reconciliation for in- 
iquity, and brought in everlasting righteousness;" 
and now the deeply interesting question presents 
itself: In what way can I, as a sinner, obtain this 
righteousness for my own personal justification ? 

Before I proceed to answer this question, I have an 
apology which I wish to offer to the reader. In perus- 



130 CHURCH-MEMBERS HAND-BOOK OF THEOLOGY. 

ing what I have written on this subject, you could 
not fail to notioe the frequent recurrence of the word 
righteousness. My reason for this constant repetition is 
this: Righteousness alone is that which will justify 
any one who is a subject of law. Many, as seems to me, 
speak on the subject of justification i a. such a way that 
the inquirer fails to get a precise and definite idea of 
that which is the essential thing in justification ; and 
for want of knowing what that is which will satisfy 
the law, and the only thing that will do it, the mind 
is kept in confusion and darkness. Having constantly 
in my view that class of readers for whose benefit I 
am laboring, I have been resolved from the first to 
confine myself to such language, as they will most 
readily understand. I could often employ a greater 
variety of style, but elegance of diction is no part of 
my object. I am earnestly solicitous to write nothing 
but what will please God ; consequently I am indif- 
ferent about literary criticism. I shall, therefore, per- 
sist in the course which I have adopted. 

Christ, by dying for sinners, has brought in an ever- 
lasting righteousness, sufficient of itself to justify any- 
sinner ; and now the question is, How is the sinner to 
become invested with this righteousness? This is no 
hard question to answer. In this I have plain work 
before me. It is one of the easiest lessons for the 
teacher to teach, and perhaps one of the hardest for 
the learner to learn, of any that belong to the gospel 
ministry. "We have plain and positive declarations in 
the word of God, and these infallible testimonies we 
shall use in solving the question. We obtain this 
righteousness simply b}" believing in it. This is ail ; 
nothing more is required. In proof of the correctness 
of this answer, let us refer to the inspired documents: 



JUSTIFICATION. 131 

" Verily, verily. I say unto you, He that heareth my 
word, and believetli on ETim that sent me. bath ever- 
lasting life, and shall not come into condemnation: but 
is passed from death unto life." (John v. 24.) ■■ Shall 
not come into condemnation." Is not this justification ? 
What more is required for justification ? * ; Hath ever- 
lasting life." If a man has everlasting life, surely be 
is justified — be is delivered from death. " For Christ 
is the end of the law for righteousness to every one 
that believetb." (Eom. x. 4.) I am not able to com- 
mand language that will express the doctrine more 
definitely and explicitly than this text. The law re- 
quires righteousness, and Christ by dying* in the sin- 
ner's place becomes the end of the law for righteousness 
to every one that believetb. What else is required here 
to obtain righteousness but to believe in it? You be- 
lieve that the righteousness of Christ is sufficient for 
your justification, and is the only tiling that will jus- 
tify you before God : this gives you a personal interest 
in it. If this is false doctrine, we must charge the 
falsehood to the Holy Spirit. I am not the author of 
the text, and I have no more right to alter any part 
of it than I have to blot it out of the Bible. If you 
choose, you may assume the responsibility of impeach- 
ing the veracity of the witness, but I will not. 

Eut perhaps you will say there are many who will 
acknowledge the truth of it who are not in a justified 
state, and that to teach the doctrine of justification in 
this way confirms them in a ruinous mistake. To this 
objection I reply that there is no danger. ~We have 
ample security against this delusion in other doctrines, 
and there is too much in the word of God that will ef- 
fectually guard us against any such consequences. 
The danger of error lies in a different place. Though 



132 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

many ma}' acknowledge the doctrine that Christ is the 
end of the law for righteousness, they do not in real- 
ity believe it, because they do not understand it. If 
one was well sounded on the subject, it would be found 
that he thinks there is something besides the death 
of Christ, or something additional — something that 
he must do, or some qualification that he must pos- 
sess in himself — to give efficacy to the righteousness 
of Christ ; or, that there is something else besides mere 
faith — some prerequisite or spiritual preparation nec- 
essary besides simply believing, or, in connection with 
it — to give him a personal interest in this justifying 
righteousness. Whatever may be said or thought, one 
thing is certain : he that believes in Jesus Christ as 
the Savior of sinners, is justified, and shall be saved. 
If you interrogate the true believer, es]3ecially if he is 
a little advanced in Christian knowledge and experi- 
ence, he will answer at once that he has nothing to 
depend upon for his acceptance but Jesus Christ and 
Him crucified, and that he has no plea to entitle him 
to an interest in Christ, but that he believes in Him. 
But even if it were otherwise, it is not my privilege, 
and hope it may never be my employment, to put 
forced constructions upon the word of God, through 
fear that the belief of the truth might produce evil 
fruits. The Divine Spirit inspired the apostle's 
thoughts and directed his words ; and the people to 
whom he addressed the epistle, the circumstances 
under which he wrote, the object he had in view in 
writing, and the special doctrines he designed to in- 
culcate — all imperatively required that he should ex- 
press himself with the most cautious precision. Im- 
mediately before he delivered this unambiguous prop- 
osition, he had shown that the idolatrous Gentiles had 



JUSTIFICATION. 133 

attained to righteousness by faith; but the Jews, who 
would have something of their own works, had failed 
to attain to righteousness, because the}' sought it not by 
faith. They could not understand the way of being 
justified by a righteousness which God had provided, 
independently of any obedience of their own, and of 
obtaining an interest in such a righteousness simply 
by believing in it: hence they were zealous to acquire 
a righteousness by rendering to the law the best obe- 
dience they could ; and whatever of insufficiency there 
might be in that obedience, they expected to supply 
by doing things over and above what they supposed 
the law required, or by the mere mercy of God exer- 
cised in defiance of law. But the righteousness which 
is of God is ; * through the redemption of Jesus Christ ; " 
and He promises to justify every sinner that believes 
in it. He asks nothing of the sinner but to receive it 
by faith. Please notice the scriptures which immedi- 
ately follow the text we are considering : " For with 
the heart man believeth unto righteousness." " "Who- 
soever belie vet h in Him shall not be ashamed." Why 
should the apostle take so much pains to support the 
doctrine of the text by other expressions of similar 
import, if he did not mean just what he said, and no 
more ? Unless we have the hardihood to take liber- 
ties with God's word, which we would be ashamed to 
take with men's language, we can make nothing else 
of it but that a sinner is justified by believing in the 
righteousness of Jesus Christ. But the scriptures I 
have quoted are not all. by many, which affirm the 
same doctrine : " I am not ashamed of the gospel of 
Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to 
every one that believeth." To every one that believ- 
eth — and here the apostle stops and adds no more. 



134 CHTJR H-MEMBERS' HAND-BOOK OF THEOLOGY. 

Will you make additions to it? But what is this gos- 
pel which we are to believe ? Let the apostle answer : 
"Christ died for our sins, and rose again the third 
day." (1 Cor. xv. 3, 4.) Will }^ou cavil at these state- 
ments ? Oh, no ! you are too modest to object to God's 
word. It is well ; and with all my heart I wish you 
would be too modest to object to God's method of 
justifying sinners. "That I may win Christ, and be 
found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which 
is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Jesus 
Christ; the righteousness which is of God by faith." 
If you are honest and sincere in your inquiries into 
this subject, this passage ought to be decisive. If you 
resist its force, you will have hard work to make any 
sense of the apostle's statement. Paul had as good a 
righteousness without faith as any man who ever 
lived, as far as we have any knowledge of his history. 
Whoever lived a more upright and unimpeachable 
life, according to law, than Paul? He himself testifies, 
under the influence of the Spirit, that he was blameless ; 
and, after his conversion, when he lived by the faith 
of the Son of God, his zeal, his labors, his self-denial 
and sufferings for Christ's sake are without a parallel ; 
and yet he counted all as worthless, .that he might win 
Christ. " Not having my own righteousness : " this 
excludes all good works, all merit, all personal holi- 
ness, as the ground of his justification. "But that 
which is through the faith of Jesus Christ:" this ex- 
cludes every thing in the way of receiving it, but be- 
lieving ; and, to present the idea as specifically as pos- 
sible, so as to avoid all possibility of misconstruction, 
the apostle adds, " The righteousness which is of God 
by faith in Jesus Christ." This is as definite and per- 
spicuous as language can make it. The apostle says 



JUSTIFICATION. 135 

to the Galatians, " If there had been a law given 
which could have given life, then verily righteousness 
should have been by the law." This shows that 
righteousness is not to be obtained by obedience to 
any law; that righteousness which is unto life is not 
of us-, but of God, and we receive it as a gift by faith, 
without any condition performed by us. 

Perhaj)s I ought in this place to direct your atten- 
tion to certain different forms of expression which are 
used in the Scriptures to signify the same thing. We 
know that a part is less than the whole, and that the 
whole must include every part ; but it is a common 
thing in the use of language to put a part for the 
whole, and this form of speaking is quite frequent in 
the Scriptures. The reason for this mode of speech is 
often too obvious to admit of misconception as to the 
meaning of the writer. Thus it is said that we are 
saved by faith, and also that we are justified by faith. 
The word saved, in its general acceptation, compre- 
hends more than the word justified, but it always in- 
cludes justification, because there is no salvation with- 
out it ; and though the word justification, in its re- 
stricted meaning, does not include the whole of salva- 
tion, yet as every one that is justified is also saved, 
the terms are used indiscriminately to mean the same 
thing. Whenever salvation is ascribed to faith, it 
proves justification by faith, for there is no salvation 
without it. I might cite to you many passages where 
it is declared that salvation is by faith, but I will 
notice but one at the present. The jailer at Philippi in- 
quires, "What must I do to be saved?" Paul an- 
swers, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou 
shalt be saved." The jailer inquires in earnest, and 
the apostle answers by inspiration, and according to 
12 



136 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

truth. If there was something else instead of faith, 
no matter what it was, that was essential, the answer 
of Paul was false, and he was a deceiver ; and if 
Paul answered rightly, all those are deceivers who 
teach differently. And further, if there was any 
thing in addition to faith that was necessary, then 
the apostle was unfaithful, and left the jailer ignorant 
of the way of salvation ; he did not truly answer the 
jailer's question. Hence it follows that by faith, and by 
faith alone, we obtain an interest in the salvation of 
Christ. Besides, our Savior himself repeatedly af- 
firmed the same doctrine in terms as positive and un- 
equivocal as the categorical answer of Paul in this case. 
Now let us examine this great question of our per- 
sonal justification in regard to works. To teach that all 
works of every kind, and all merit in us, are entirely 
excluded in the matter and manner of our justification, 
is thought by some equivalent to giving us a license 
to live in sin. But if any man thinks he believes in 
Christ, and yet desires to indulge in sin, he knows 
nothing about believing in Christ ; he is ignorant of 
Christ, and of himself, and of sin, and of every thing 
in this matter that he has need to know ; he knows 
nothing of the truth in Jesus. Without any fear of an 
opposer, I hesitate not to say that it is impossible for a 
man that has a living faith in Christ to love sin; for 
if he believes in Christ, he has the Spirit of Christ, and 
can not desire to live in sin. On the subject now be- 
fore us, as well as in every thing else that is revealed 
in the gospel, we can know nothing except what is 
found in the inspired writings. Whatever a man may 
learn of the fundamental principles of the Divine law 
by reasoning from the Divine attributes as mani- 
fested in the works of creation and providence, we can 






JUSTIFICATION. 137 

know nothing at all respecting God's method of justi- 
fying sinners, only as He has revealed it by special 
communication. Whatever, therefore, is testified in 
the word of God must be taken as true ; and on the 
subject now under consideration the documents are full 
and explicit, so that we must treat with decided dis- 
regard the plainest testimony, or we can not evade the 
truth. But the natural man is so invincibly attached 
to the principle of living on terms of law with his 
offended Creator, that when he finds himself utterly 
jDrecluded from the possibility of a reconciliation with 
God by any law which He has given, sooner than sub- 
mit to a change of relationship he will make laws of 
his own. and endeavor to obtain a justifying righteous- 
ness by a compliance with his own prescriptions. 
Therefore, without resorting to a course of reasoning 
from the principles of moral right, which, in respect to 
the way of salvation, is always inadmissible, let us 
take the sure word of God, and form our judgment 
simply upon the evidence of the record: '-For if 
Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to 
glory, but not before God.'' This teaches that Abra- 
ham was not justified by works, in as plain language 
as it can be expressed; for if he had been justified 
by works he would have had whereof to glory before 
God. The apostle's expression is stronger than any 
mere didactic statement could be. If a man can be 
justified by any work whatever, he is justly entitled 
to that privilege on the clearest principles of moral 
justice, and may, without arrogance, rejoice in his ac- 
quisition ; but, then, faith in Christ would be wholly 
excluded, for if it is of works it is not of faith. We 
read of many good works that Abraham performed 
after he believed, and was therefore justified, but of 



138 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

none before lie had faith, for "without faith it is im- 
possible to please God.'' But why might not Abra- 
ham glory before God? Plainly because it is testified 
that Abraham believed God, and it was counted to 
him for righteousness — that is, he believed God, and 
was justified. If he had a justifying righteousness by 
faith, there was no need of works to justify him. To 
say that Abraham might have gloried -before men, 
but not before God, is going out of the scope of the 
apostle's argument, and is quite foreign to the subject. 
I feel quite confident that the idea of glory before 
men never came into Paul's mind ; nor can I recol- 
lect a single instance, when the apostle is speaking on 
the subject of justification, where he makes the re- 
motest allusion to being justified before men. He 
never condescends to notice such trifles when showing 
the way of a sinner's justification through the atone- 
ment of Christ. " Knowing that a man is not justi- 
fied by the works of the law, but by the faith of 
Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, 
that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and 
nx)t by the works of the law, for by the works of the law 
shall no flesh be justified." Are not works of the law 
entirely excluded from the way of justification by this 
text, and is not justification limited to faith alone? 
The humble, teachable mind will be more willing to 
receive this truth, than to put a false construction 
upon the words. A man may labor to obtain an in- 
terest in the righteousness of Christ by his good works, 
but he must forever labor in vain; fur he must en- 
counter the opposition of the Scriptures in every thing- 
he does for that purpose. But it maybe objected: 
•'Was not the apostle speaking of the ceremonial law?" 
I think he was speaking of all law T . , But suppose he 



JUSTIFICATION. 139 

was speaking exclusively of the ceremonial law, by the 
observance of which it is allowed that none pretend to 
be justified; then it follows that the apostle was not 
intending to exclude works under the moral law, 
which are a much higher order of works than mere 
ritual observances. I admit that works performed ac- 
cording to the spiritual claims of the moral law are of 
a higher order of moral excellence than mere ritual 
performances ; and that if we have to secure an in- 
terest in the righteousness of Christ by obedience to 
law, these are the works necessary to be done, and the 
only works that can profit us, because that is the law 
by which we are to be judged. Take it upon this 
ground, and it follows that we must do " all things 
which are written in the book of the law." And this 
would render the righteousness of God by faith in 
Jesus Christ . superfluous, and also faith in Christ is 
totally excluded having no object. Now which plan 
of justification is the best and safest for a frail sinner — 
to be justified by faith alone, or by faith and works 
both? And further, by which method is the grace of 
God more gloriously displayed — to be justified by grace 
through faith, or to be justified by our own works? I 
might also ask, if justification is by works, either in 
whole or in part, does it not la}" a foundation for boast- 
ing ? For if Abraham had been justified by works, it 
is certain he would have had whereof to glory. And 
why not you and I? "As many as are of the works of 
the law are under the curse." It is not said as many 
as break the law are under the curse. The doctrine 
the apostle teaches here is that if we will pursue the 
works of the law with a view to our justification, we 
are under the curse, because we have not rendered a 
perfect obedience to the law, which we must do, or we 



140 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

have no hope of being justified by works. Eead the 
latter part of the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the 
Romans, and if you are willing to be guided by Script- 
ure, you can not fail to see that our works have noth- 
ing to do in our justification. Let us look at a few 
more scriptures : "Now to him that worketh is the re- 
ward not reckoned of grace, but of debt; but to him 
that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth 
the ungodly, his faith is reckoned to him for righteous- 
ness." (Rom. iv. 4, 5.) " Therefore it is of faith that 
it might be by grace." (Ver. 16.) "Being justified 
freely by His grace." (Rom. iii. 24.) There is no 
need that a sinner should be holy, or religious, or 
humble, as a condition of his being justified by believ- 
ing; for let his character be what it may, he is justified 
as an ungodly sinner. If he is holy, it gives him no title 
to justification by the grace of Christ ; and if he is un- 
godly, it is no bar to that privilege. You should not 
do good nor be good with a view of being thereby justi- 
fied ; but believe on Him that justifies the ungodly 
and then do good, and be good that you may glorify 
Him by whose grace you are justified freely without 
your works. 

There are some who earnestly contend that we are 
justified by the righteousness of Christ, who, notwith- 
standing, object to the term imputed. I am no stickler 
for terms, and if any will supply me with a more ap- 
propriate word, I will consent to use it on all occasions, 
rather than give needless offense. Perhaps such per- 
sons attach an idea to the word impute a little different 
from the sense in which I would use it. If so, there 
ought to be no disagreement between us, for we may 
both believe the same thing. If they say that it is no- 
where expressly said in Scripture that we are justified 



JUSTIFICATION. 141 

by the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, I would 
remind them that it is a very weak argument, and 
amounts to very little, or nothing at all. The doctrine 
may be clearly taught in the Bible without such verbal 
exactness. We read of righteousness as a gift, and this 
is a very acceptable term with me, and accords well 
with other doctrines. It accords with the whole of our 
salvation from first to last. It is also said that we are 
made the righteousness of God, and that Christ is 
made unto us righteousness. But I will state the doc- 
trine thus: We are all sinners under condemnation of 
the laAv, and Christ, by His death, has satisfied the law, 
and thus brought in a perfect righteousness, in which, 
or on account of which, we are justified when we be- 
lieve in Him. If you take this from me, you take all; 
I have nothing left. If you will receive this doctrine, 
we will not wrangle about words. But being unskill- 
ful in the use of words, I will freely confess that I know 
of no word more appropriate by which to express the 
manner in which the benefit of Christ's righteousness 
is applied to us than this old-fashioned word impute. 
" Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the 
man to whom God imputeth righteousness without 
works." Taking this text with the connection, and it 
is too evident -to be denied that the righteousness by 
which we are justified is imputed to us. If it is a 
righteousness of our own, it is self-righteousness; there 
is no way to evade this ; and I know of no other 
righteousness by which we can be justified but the 
righteousness of Christ. This comes as near saying 
that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ im- 
puted to us, as I have any need of to establish the 
doctrine. 

The Scriptures most clearly teach that we are justi- 



142 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

fied by faith without any good works done by us, or 
any good that is in us. This doctrine has been op- 
posed by an objection which it is proper to notice. If 
the objection is founded in truth it ought to be known. 
It should not be slighted or shunned, but we ought to 
meet it fairly. I have, in a previous section, adverted 
to it, and now I design to consider it more fully. It is 
alleged by some that if we are justified alone by faith 
in Jesus Christ, without any thing good in us, or done 
by us, it opens a door to licentiousness, and that a 
man believing in Christ may live in sin, and yet be 
justified and saved. As this objection is not brought 
against the doctrine of justification itself, but only 
against the way in which we are justified, it is neces- 
sary to inquire into the nature of that faith by which 
we are justified, that we may see whether the doctrine 
of a free justification is justly liable to the force of the 
objection. I would remark, however, that I am not 
bound to disprove the objection, but the burden of 
proving lies, in the first instance, on the objector, and 
unless he exhibits. the proofs he is not entitled to an 
answer. But I have never seen any attempt to sup- 
port the objection by evidence. I will even go further, 
and say that if the objector could establish the truth 
of his objection, it would not overthrow the doctrine 
against which it is brought — it would only amount to 
a difficulty, nothing more. Of one thing I feel per- 
fectly confident — the objection can not be sustained 
by the Holy Scriptures. And as to arguments de- 
duced by reasoning from general principles, they are 
of no value when opposed to the plain teaching of the 
inspired word. If the genuine effects of evangelical 
faith, as taught in the Bible, will show us that it has 
no such tendency as that which the objection implies, 



JUSTIFICATION. 143 

the objector is left without any ground to stand upon. 
And I have no fear of failing to show that faith has a 
tendency directly contrary to that which the objection 
ascribes to it. "Purifying their hearts by faith." 
" Sanctified by faith that is in me." Thus we see that 
holiness is the direct fruit of faith : how, then, is it pos- 
sible that it should have a tendency to induce the be- 
liever to live in sin ? If there is a disposition to live 
in sin, it must be for the want of faith, for it can not 
bear both sinful and holy fruit. It is by faith that we 
overcome the world. "Who is he that overcometh the 
world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of 
God ? " By faith we are able to quench all the fiery 
darts of the wicked. We live by faith, we walk by 
faith, by faith we stand. He that believes shall be 
saved, shall never perish, shall not come into condem- 
nation, shall never be ashamed. Christ dwells in them, 
and they are the children of God. All these things are 
ascribed to faith in the word of God ; and should we 
be baffled for a moment by an objection that has not 
been proved true, and can not be proved ? 

13 



144 church-members' hand-book of theology, 



CHAPTEE VIII. 

the final perseverance of the saints. 

Man, in his natural state, is destitute of the spirit 
of holiness. He has not in his heart the love of God. 
He is dead in trespasses and sins ; and except he is 
quickened by the Divine Spirit and made spiritually 
alive, he is morally incapable of rendering to God any 
spiritual and acceptable service. He must be born 
again, and made a new creature. This change in his 
internal character is effected by the Holy Spirit, and 
there is no other power that can perform the work. 
When this change is wrought in him, he has spiritual 
life, and is capable of spiritual exercises. These doc- 
trines, I believe, are acknowledged by all who can 
make any fair pretensions to the name of evangelical. 
When we are born of the Spirit we possess spiritual 
life, and commence our spiritual pilgrimage to the 
heavenly Canaan. But here a question arises which 
we shall attempt to discuss, and, like every other 
question which is immediately connected with our 
salvation, we ought to decide it by the word of God. 
The question may be stated thus : Will every true 
child of God certainly continue in a state of grace 
until finally saved? The question might be varied 
in form, but this statement seems to be sufficient for 
the purpose, as the precise doctrine must necessarily 
come into view as we proceed with the investigation. 



THE FINAL PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 145 

I have stated it as fairly as I know how. The affirma- 
tive of this question is usually called "The doctrine of 
the final perseverance of the saints ; " and the negative 
is termed " The doctrine of final apostasy." Both 
doctrines have many advocates, and specious argu- 
ments are brought forward in support of these differ- 
ent views. I believe it is conceded omboth sides that 
a true Christian may be betrayed into sin, and some- 
times into very grievous sins, while yet he has not 
actually lost his spiritual life; and I believe it is also 
admitted that a true Christian may become cold and 
worldly-minded, and spiritual affections may suffer a 
decay, and need the reviving influences of the Spirit 
of grace, but his spiritual life is still whole within him ; 
or, in other words, a Christian may backslide to a cer- 
tain degree without entirely losing his spiritual life. 
It is also held on both sides that a man may be the 
subject of very strong religious impressions, and be- 
lieve that he is truly converted, and others may think 
so too, but in fact he was never truly born again. All 
this may be true without proving or disproving either 
side of the question at issue. 

I shall attempt to establish the affirmative of this 
question, and to show from the Holy Scriptures that 
the children of God will persevere through grace to 
final salvation. If the Scriptures do not support my 
views, I will not contend ; and if any will maintain 
the contrary, they must confine their arguments to the 
word of God; for if the true doctrine is not found 
there, the question is not worth debate. 

Before I present the evidence of this doctrine, I will 
remark that there is a kindred doctrine taught in the 
Bible which, strictly speaking, does not belong to this 
subject. It is the doctrine of the certain and ever- 



146 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

lasting security of the Church. This is not identical 
with the doctrine of the final perseverance of the 
6aints. The two should not he treated of as the same, 
though it is often done. Two planks in a floor may 
have the same use, and touch each other from end to 
end, but they are not the same piece of timber. We 
will, therefore, examine the doctrine of final persever- 
ance, and attend to the other in its own place. 

The final perseverance of a Christian has a more 
intimate connection with sanctification. The believer 
perseveres or continues in a course of obedience by the 
same grace which sanctifies his heart; and if sancti- 
fying grace should cease to be given, his continu- 
ance in well-doing would also fail. If it should be 
asked, " If a Christian were left entirely to himself to 
stand in his own strength, would he utterly fall and 
be lost?" I suppose it might be answered in the af- 
firmative ; for I suppose that the whole universal cre- 
ation would fall into total annihilation if the preserv- 
ing power of God were entirely withdrawn from it. 
Nothing is independent of Him. God is the only in- 
dependent being in existence, and every thing is as 
dependent on Him for its continuance in being, as it 
was for its coming into existence at first. So that if 
we were to concede that if a Christian were to be en- 
tirely deserted by his God, he would fall finally, and 
be lost, the concession would not affect the doctrine of 
the final perseverance of every true believer in Christ. 
Our Savior said of all those whom His Father had 
given Him, that they should never perish ; and it is 
also said, "Be thou faithful unto death, and I will 
give thee a crown of life." And we have no more 
right to add in the one case, "provided they prove 
faithful," than we have in the other case to take out 



THE FINAL PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 147 

the words, "be thou faithful." In the most positive 
terms I deny the right of any man to make any such, 
additions or mutilations in the Divine record ; or to 
introduce any conditions, where such are not found in 
the text. If such conditions are taught in the Script- 
ures, and really attach to any particular doctrine, 
we should rely on those passages where such condi- 
tions are specified, and not take the liberty of an- 
nexing them to other passages where none such are 
found, in order to evade the force of texts that seem 
to militate against a doctrine elsewhere taught. 

So far as I understand the views of those who main- 
tain the doctrine of final apostasy, they would contend 
as firmly as I would, that all who do continue to be 
faithful will certainly obtain ultimate salvation ; but 
on the other hand, they believe that a true believer 
may prove unfaithful, and be finally lost. I have no 
wish to misrepresent the opinions of those who differ 
from me, and if I have not stated their doctrine fairly, 
it is because I have misunderstood it. There is not a 
truth taught in the Bible that I desire to shun, and I 
am forcibly impressed with the belief that many of 
those who oppose the doctrine of final perseverance, 
do -not clearly understand the true ground upon which 
the doctrine is founded. 

Spiritual life is given to the believer by the Holy 
Spirit, and when this life is received, we may with 
propriety ask whether it is in the power of God to 
maintain this lite, and enable the child of God to con- 
tinue in a state of grace and hold on his way to the 
end of his race. I suppose no one would deny this. 
Surely the most strenuous advocate of final apostasy- 
would not contend that, however liable to fall the 
Christian may be, God is not able to make him stand. 



148 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

But although this point would not be controverted, it 
may be of use to devote a little attention to this part 
of the subject. We ought to understand the nature of 
the power and the way in which it is exercised, in 
order to accomplish the end proposed. It is not that 
physical power which He put forth in producing the 
material creation, but a spiritual power, exercised in 
a way of influence, operating upon moral character, 
or moral natures. The physical power of God may be 
sufficient, for aught we know, to save men in their 
sins ; but the justice of God and the holiness of His na- 
ture are such that He can not exercise it in any such 
way. We, being sinners and rebels against His au- 
thority, are justly exposed to His righteous displeasure, 
and are under the curse of His law. Our relation to 
Him as condemned criminals, forbids all spiritual in- 
tercourse, and thus we are cut off from all spiritual 
life and strength, until a way of reconciliation is 
opened up, as a medium through which may be com- 
municated to us spiritual blessings. The barrier 
which our sins had interposed between Him and us, 
is removed by the sacrifice of His Son, in whom 
dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. The 
atonement thus made for our sins, opened an ample 
and all-sufficient medium through which the gifts and 
graces of the Divine Spirit could be shed abroad in 
our hearts, to give us life and strength in a way con- 
sistent with the moral perfections of the Divine Nature, 
and the honor of His law. Christ having died and 
-risen again, is exalted at .the right hand of the Majesty 
on high, and officiates in behalf of His people as inter- 
cessor ; and through His intercession the Holy Ghost 
is given to us in measures equal to all our necessities 
for life and godliness. There is an infinite and undi- 



THE FINAL PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 149 

minishable fullness in the Holy Spirit, so that all nec- 
essary supplies may be granted to the believer in due 
time and measure, according to the will of God.. Thus 
the power of God, exercised in giving and maintaining 
spiritual life, is not merely that physical power ex- 
erted in creating the world, but a spiritual power, act- 
ing upon spiritual objects, for accomplishing a partic- 
ular end, according to the design of Him who work- 
eth all things after the counsel of His own will, and 
.all having an immediate reference to the ultimate sal- 
vation of the people of God, and the glory of His grace. 

Having submitted this view of the fullness of spirit- 
ual power for the preservation of the children of God, 
I repeat that the sufficiency of this power of God for 
the preservation of His saints will not be denied. And 
then the point in controversy is reduced to this : " Is it 
the will of God to give His children the necessary sup- 
plies of grace to insure their final salvation ? " Upon 
this question hangs the whole controversy. This is 
the precise issue between the contending parties. If 
this point can be determined by the word of God, it 
would be useless and even frivolous to debate the sub- 
ject any longer, or in any other point of view. To 
this point, therefore, I shall direct my inquiries in the 
further discussion of the subject. 

I quote from Romans viii. 32 : u He that spared not 
His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how 
shall He not with Him also freely give us all things ? " 
The apostle is addressing himself particularly to be- 
lievers, as the whole chapter fully shows. He sets 
forth the firm ground of hope which the children of 
God have in the plan of salvation through Christ. 
And the method of reasoning which he employs is one 
of the strongest modes of logical argument known to 



150 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

the art of reasoning. The argument implies that the 
contrary is an absurdity. If the love of God to His 
children is so boundless and invincible that He would 
make the infinite sacrifice of giving His well-beloved 
Son to die for them, will He then suffer them to finally 
perish for the want of a little spiritual strength, which 
it is His delight to give ? Men may use this mode of 
reasoning, and because of some unseen fallacy in the 
process of deduction, lead to a false conclusion, but 
not so the Spirit of God. In this reasoning of the Holy 
Spirit there is an implied defiance of the whole world 
to controvert or evade the conclusion, and yet there 
are some that will not submit. "Freely give ns all 
things." If the phrase " all things " is to be understood 
in a general sense, and not strictly universal, yet why 
should the only exception be the very thing which the 
Christian most needs, and without which he can not be 
saved ? But any exception is inconsistent with the ar- 
gument; for the argument is, that if God should do 
so great a thing for our salvation, how should He re- 
fuse to do that which is so much less? The principle 
upon which He reasons excludes all possible excep- 
tions. 

It will not be denied that there is an all-sufficiency 
of gracious power in the Holy Spirit to sustain the 
children of God under every possible necessity. This 
power is exercised towards us through the intercession 
of our great High Priest Christ Jesus. And are we 
to suppose that He is unwilling to intercede for us? 
or shall we say that His intercession is ineffectual? 
There must be an unwillingness on the part of the 
Father to answer the intercession of His Son, or an un- 
willingness on the part of the Son to make intercession 
for us, or an insufficiency in the power of the Holy 



THE FINAL PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 151 

Spirit to impart the needful grace, otherwise the true 
believer will he kept by the power of God through 
faith unto salvation. The doctrine of final apostasy 
greatly dishonors the efficacy and glory of Christ's in- 
tercession ; and it is not easy to see how it can be said 
in truth that He is able to save them to the uttermost 
(or forever, as in the margin) that come to God by Him. 
The text here referred to (Heb. vii. 25) has immediate 
reference to the intercession of our great High Priest. 
An indefensible cause will sometimes induce its adher- 
ents to resort to evasions wholly unworthy of a candid 
inquirer after truth ; hence some may say that God 
will give the needful grace to His children if they ask 
Him. But this is little or nothing less than begging 
the question; it is, in effect, saying, If they perse- 
vere they will persevere — " they will be saved if they 
hold out faithful." I am aware that this is a strong- 
hold to which the advocates of final apostasy constant- 
ly repair when pressed by the promises of the gospel, 
but it will afford them no shelter ; for if they could 
find a clear warrant in Scripture for annexing this 
condition (which they have not done) the argument 
would still be futile — the argument would never 
touch the true principle upon which the perseverance of 
the saints rests. Suppose we give them their own posi- 
tion, and say, " The Lord will give us sustaining grace if 
we pray for it." To see the emptiness of their argument, 
it is only necessar} T to reflect that the spirit of prayer is 
an important part of persevering grace. And this is 
what the Lord has promised: "I will give them the 
spirit of grace and of supplication." The spirit of 
prayer is as much a fruit of the Spirit as love or hu- 
mility. But in respect to the intercession of Christ, 
there is no propriety in detaching a particular grace 



152 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

or qualification from all or any of the rest of the spir- 
itual exercises of the heart. It does manifest injustice 
to the work of the Divine Spirit. That which the in- 
tercession jDrocures for the believer is the Spirit of 
Christ, which embraces or produces all His gifts and 
graces. "When He gives us His Holy Spirit, the gift 
includes, necessarily, all the fruits of the Spirit; for 
though the Spirit is given us in measure, yet it is not 
given to us in piecemeal. It can not be proved to be 
even possible that the Spirit can be given to us with- 
out including the spirit of prayer. Besides, God's rule 
in giving us His Spirit is according to our need, and 
not according to our petitions; and He knows our 
needs often when we do not. In giving persevering 
grace and strength, He is not governed by our suppli- 
cations, but by the intercession of Christ our advocate • 
at His right hand. And full well does our great In- 
tercessor know all our necessities; for we have not a 
High Priest who can not be touched with the feeling 
of our infirmities. 

If there is any professed believer who does not 
habitually pray for grace to sanctify his heart and 
preserve him from sin, I should suspect that he is not 
a true child of God; and the children of God who 
do pray for it, are indebted to the Holy Spirit for 
their desires, which are the essence of prayer. So far 
as any Christian has any real desire for spiritual 
blessings, that desire is originated by the Holy Spirit. 
Every child of God should keep in remembrance that 
it is not of ourselves that we are upheld in spiritual 
life, but we are kept by the power of God through 
faith unto salvation ; that is, by His spiritual power, 
exercised in giving us continual supplies of grace and 
spiritual strength, whereby we are spiritually enabled 



THE FINAL PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 153 

to persist in a. course of well-doing, according as His 
Divine power hath given us all things that pertain 
to life and godliness. His spiritual power, as exer- 
cised in relation to His children, is inseparable from 
His will; and if we should say that according to His 
will He hath given us all things that pertain to life 
and godliness, we should bat express the same idea. 
Xone doubt the sufficiency of His physical power to 
do any thing ; and if He gives His children all things 
that pertain to life and godliness, the expression can 
not comprehend any thing less than a full sufficiency 
of spiritual influences to maintain in us spiritual life 
and holiness, which will certainly insure our final 
salvation. 

That which* the natural man has need of is spiritual 
life ; so that the}"' who are dead in sins are quickened 
— made alive — by the Holy Spirit. This being done, 
we have spiritual life; and if this life is maintained in 
us, our salvation is sure; for death and life can not 
subsist in the same subject, and in the same respect. 
If, therefore, it is the will of God to uphold us in 
spiritual life, the final perseverance of the saints must 
necessarily be a certainty. I will therefore quote a 
few texts in relation to this point : " And this is the 
will of Him that sent me, that every one which seeth 
the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting 
life : and I will raise him up at the last day." (John vi. 
40.) "No man can come to me, except the Father 
which hath sent me draw him : and I will raise him 
up at the last day." (Yer. 44.) "I am the living 
bread which came down from heaven : if any man eat 
of this bread, he shall live forever." (Yer. 51.) " AY he so 
eateth my flesh, and .drinketh my blood, hath eternal 
life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (Yer. 54.) 



154 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

" As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the 
Father ; so he that eateth me, even he shall live by 
me." (Ver. 57.) "He that eateth of this bread shall 
live forever." (Ver. 58.) To evade the force and obvi- 
ous meaning of these scriptures, we must ignore every 
acknowledged rule of interpretation, and do violence 
to the well-known laws of language. That receiving 
Christ by faith, is what is meant by eating and drinking, 
in the above quotations, is plain from the general tenor 
of the connection in which they stand. That all 
(every one, distributive) that believe in Christ shall 
have everlasting life, is here declared to be the will of 
the Father, and Jesus says He will raise him up at the 
last day. This life can be supported only by the 
power of God ; and if He is not willing' to maintain 
this spiritual life until the last day, how can we depend 
upon His word? Such phrases as " everlasting life," 
" eternal life," and u life forever," must receive a 
meaning not only different from their ordinary accepta- 
tion, but directly contrary to it, if any thing short of 
salvation is admitted. Any rule of interpretation 
which would even admit final apostasy in the above- 
cited scriptures, if adhered to, would demolish the 
whole body of Divine revelation. " As the living Father 
hath sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that 
eateth me shall live by me." The epithet living, as 
applied to the Father, denotes that He lives by the 
necessity of His own nature, and that it is impossible 
that He should not live ; on any other supposition the 
epithet would be needless. The doctrine taught is, 
that as surely as the Father lives, so surely the Son 
will live; and as surely as He lives, so surely will 
they live who believe in Him. If I were engaged in 
a public debate, and my opponent should produce 



THE FINAL PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 155 

scriptures that would contradict my thesis as expressly 
as the above texts and some others contradict the 
doctrine of final apostasy, I should quail, and not 
know how to answer. Again, Jesus says, " Because I 
live, ye shall live also." The only way to resist this 
testimony is to contradict it. It is an unqualified 
affirmation, and we must meet it with an unqualified 
contradiction, or give it an unqualified reception. The 
affirmation is either true or false. Evasion has no 
place here. 

Those who oppose the doctrine of final perseverance 
take false ground. Their argument proceeds upon the 
supposition that when a man is converted, he must 
persevere in his own strength, independently of the 
continual supports of Divine grace. But on this prin- 
ciple I would not attempt to defend the doctrine. It 
is not the true ground upon which the doctrine is 
founded. We are every moment dependent upon the 
sustaining grace of G-od. " Xot that we are sufficient 
of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves, but our 
sufficiency is of God." He has given us assurance in 
His word that He will give us grace in time of need. 
" Nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in 
me." "I can do all things through Christ which 
strengthen eth me." It is C4od that works in us, both 
to will and to do -of His good pleasure; and, having 
begun this work in us, He will perform it unto the 
day of Jesus Christ. 

The prayers of the saints are in perfect accord with 
this principle : "Hold Thou me up and I shall be safe, 
and I will have respect unto thy statutes continually." 
"Uphold me according to thy word; and let me not 
be ashamed of my hope." Thus it is in the Lord that 
we have righteousness and strength. "Uphold rae 



156 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

with thy free Spirit." "Hold up my goings in thy 
paths, that my footsteps slip not." The true Christian 
prays habitually for grace to uphold him in the paths 
of righteousness ; and the Lord says, "My grace is 
sufficient for thee." The mother may forget her suck- 
ing child, but the Lord will not forget His children, 
and he that touches them, touches the apple of His 
eye. 

Let us view this subject in respect to the love of 
God: "God so loved the world that He gave His 
only-begotten Son." " But God who is rich in mercy, 
for His great love wherewith He loved us even when 
we were dead in sins." " Behold what manner of love 
the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be 
called the sons of God." "But God commendeth His 
love toward us. in that while we were yet sinners, 
Christ died for us." "For if when we were enemies 
we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, 
much more being reconciled, we shailbe saved by His 
life." As God loved his people with so great a love 
when they were enemies — when dead in sins — will He 
love them less, now that they are regenerated and 
adopted, and are His children, and have the love of 
God in their hearts ? After they have become His 
children by faith in Jesus Christ, does He love them 
less than He did when they were enemies and rebels 
against His authority? Did He love them more while 
they were the children and willing servants of the 
devil, than He does when they are His'own children? 
Are we to suppose that His love is so fickle and in- 
constant that, having loved His own unto death, that 
He will not love them to the end? Is it rational to 
suppose that He will stand by and see His children 
actually perish and die for want of sustenance? The 



THE FINAL PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 157 

apostle's argument is in direct opposition to the notion 
that God will let go His children out of the hand of 
His love. I can see no possible way to reconcile the 
doctrine of final apostasy with the argument of the 
apostle. 

The children of God are under the new and ever- 
lasting covenant, and have a personal interest and a 
vested right in all its provisions. In that covenant 
God stipulates that He will be their God, and they 
shall be His people; for "I will be merciful to their 
unrighteousness, and their sins and iniquities will I 
remember no more." I feel a reluctance in referring 
to some passages in Scripture, because I have reason to 
believe that some of those who reject the doctrine of 
final perseverance are prejudiced against them. " My 
sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they 
follow me : and I give unto them eternal life; and they 
shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them 
out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, 
.is greater than all ; and no man is able to pluck them 
out of my Father's hand." (John x. 27-29.) In read- 
ing such solemn declarations of the Son of God, the 
truly pious and reverential mind will be loath to seek 
evasions. They ought to be accepted as decisive, and 
impose silence on gainsayers. Eut if any one will 
cherish hostility to the oracles of God, it will not 
make the word of God of none effect: "For I am 
persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, 
nor princij)alities, nor powers, nor things present, nor 
things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other 
creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of 
God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. viii. 
38, 39.) 

]STow, why all this accumulation ? How can we read 



158 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

it without coming to the conclusion that the apostle 
intended to comprehend every conceivable possibility 
that a child of God might fail of final salvation ? Can 
any one show a reason why the apostle should, in this 
enumeration, embrace the heavens above and the earth 
beneath; life and death; the heights and the depths; 
all things present and to come; and close with an ex- 
pression that includes every thing else, if any excep- 
tion were allowable? It is my honest opinion that 
there is not an opposer of the doctrine, however com- 
petent he might be, if he should attempt to express 
the certain and infallible salvation of the Lord's 
people, in the strongest language that he is capable 
of using, who could equal the terms employed by the 
apostle in the preceding quotation. For what pur- 
pose is the light of inspiration given to us if we will 
shut our eyes? I am almost tempted to think that the 
man whose incredulity can resist such evidence, is 
proof against Divine testimony. I would remark, 
however, there is some difference of opinion among 
men, as to whether the phrase, "the love of God," is 
to be understood of God's love to us or of our love to 
Him. But so far as the doctrine now under consider- 
ation is concerned in the question, it is a matter of no 
consequence which construction is put on the phrase. 
If it is impossible to separate us from God's love to us 
in Christ, our final salvation is certain; and if it is 
impossible to separate us from our love to Him, our 
salvation is equally certain; so that the doctrine is in 
no way affected by any seeming ambiguity in the 
phraseology. That the former construction is the true 
one, I have no doubt, for I think the context clearly 
shows it. But on either interpretation the passage is 
fatal to final apostasy. God is unchangeable ; and as 



THE FINAL PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 159 

to our mutability we have security in the promises. 
"I will put my fear into their hearts, that they shall 
not depart from me." This text shows that the Lord's 
children shall not depart from Him, and also shows 
the reason why they wiU not; that is, the Lord will 
put his fear into their hearts. This one text expresses 
the fundamental principle upon which the whole con- 
troversy rests, and should be decisive with every hon- 
est inquirer. God's children will not utterly depart 
from Him, because He will give them grace to cleave 
to Him. It is disagreeable to turn aside to notice 
quibbles; but sometimes men who are conscious of 
their inability to find scripture or reason to meet an 
argument, will resort to this contemptible mode of 
evasion. It has been said on the passage quoted from 
Eomans, that sin may separate us from the love of 
God, and that sin is not a creature. I am confident 
that if any man of ordinary intelligence ever employs 
this insignificant evasion, he is ashamed of it when he 
does it ; for he must be sensible at the time that self- 
respect forbids it. The objection really is not worthy 
of respectful notice ; yet, for the reader's sake, I will 
notice it respectfully. It is said, "Neither death nor 
life." Now what could death do in this matter with- 
out sin ? It would be powerless. And what would sin 
do if it did not produce death ? It would effect noth- 
ing as to depriving us of spiritual life. "Nor princi- 
palities, nor powers." There is not the least danger 
that the principalities and powers in heaven would 
separate us from the love of God, for they are engaged 
on our side ; being sent forth to minister to them who 
are to be heirs of salvation. It is their office and 
their holy delight to give us every assistance. And 
can the principalities of hell and darkness do any 
14 



160 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

thing against us in any other way than through sin ? 
If God be for us, who can be against us? "JSTor 
things present, nor things to come." Is not sin among 
present things? No Christian will answer in the 
negative. " ISTor principalities, nor powers." Is not sin 
a power ? If it has power to separate the Lord's 
children from His love to them in Christ, it must 
surely be a power ; it must have a power to do more 
than all the mighty things that belong to immensity 
and duration of time, for the apostle selects the might- 
iest things that belong to both, and affirms that they 
can not do it. Those who desire to stand in their own 
strength, andean thankfully enjoy the danger to which 
it subjects them, must have more confidence in them- 
selves, and less in the grace of God. than I desire to 
have. I can easily conceive how a strong man armed 
may keep his palace in peace; and I can also conceive 
how a stronger than he may overcome him, take from 
him his armor, and oust him ; but I can 'not well un- 
derstand how the conquered and weaker man, when 
deprived of his armor, can return and overcome the 
stronger, and reject him, and repossess his lost habita- 
tion, especially if the victorious conqueror is the Al- 
mightj 7 - Spirit of God. 

It can not be out of place here to make a few re- 
marks on the term " eternal life," and others of simi- 
lar meaning. The term may be employed in reference 
exclusively to the state of the saints after death : or 
it may relate to that spiritual life which. is imparted to 
believers in this world, and which is to endure forever. 
That it is used in this latter sense in some places, is too 
evident to be doubted, and it is in respect to such 
passages that I now ask the attention of the reader: 
" He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life." 



THE FINAL PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS 161 

(John iii. 36.) Here it is hath, not shall have. " Verily, 
verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and 
believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, 
and shall not come into condemnation ; but is passed 
from death unto life." (John v. 24.) "Verily, verily, 
1 say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlast- 
ing life." (John vi. 47.) As my object in quoting 
these scriptures is to show that such terms are applied 
to that spiritual life which the believer receives in this 
world, it is needless to add others, and especially as 
I do not suppose it will be denied. The point to 
which I would direct your attention is this : that this 
spiritual life is declared to be eternal, or everlasting. 
And if it were even possible, according to the plan of 
salvation, that this life might cease, it could not, with 
propriety of language, be called " eternal life. 11 If it is 
not the determinate will of God that this life shall 
endure forever, such language would convey a false 
idea. To say that a man who has eternal life may die, 
is a contradiction in itself. It is intuitively evident 
that a life that may die is not eternal life. The life 
that believers have is dependent upon the life of Christ: 
" As I live ye shall live also." Never till Christ dies 
will this life cease; and He having once died unto sin, 
dieth no more : death hath no more dominion over 
Him. And when Christ, who is our life, shall appear, 
we may assure ourselves that we also shall appear 
with Him in glory. I believe some have said that when 
they arrive in heaven, they expect to strive and labor 
as hard' to keep a place there, as they now do to ob- 
tain an entrance there. In this they are consistent 
with themselves ; the same principle by which our 
spiritual life will be preserved there, is that which 
maintains it here. If the preservation of our spirit- 



162 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

ual life here depends upon ourselves, it will depend 
upon ourselves there. But as the continuance of our 
spiritual life depends upon our union with Christ, so it 
will there. It is the grace of God which gives us 
salvation here; and by the same grace we expect to be 
saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation, world 
without end. 

Before closing this article I will notice one or two 
objections which have been opposed to the doctrine, 
we have been defending. 

1. It is said that if the doctrine of final perseverance 
is true, that exhortations to faithfulness and admoni- 
tions of danger must be useless. On this objection I 
will remark : 

(1.) That the truth of this objection has never been 
proved, and I suppose it can not be proved. And, in 
strictness, all that is necessary is to deny the truth of 
the proposition ; at least the objector is certainly 
bound to prove the objection true if he will make any 
effectual use of it. 

(2.) The perseverance of the saints is to be ascribed 
to the grace of God; and it is His will to use means 
for accomplishing His purposes of grace. Those ex- 
hortations and admonitions may be a part of that sys- 
tem of means which He has appointed for bringing 
His children home to Himself. Are not those exhorta- 
tions well adapted to excite Christians to diligence in 
pressing towards the mark for the prize ? 

(3.) We are never exhorted to any thing that is not 
duty, and duty is the same whether the doctrine be 
true or false. 

(4.) We are not always competent to decide whether 
exhortations and warnings are useless under given cir- 
cumstances. If the infant Jesus had been destroyed, 



THE FINAL PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 163 

what would have become of God's purpose to save 
sinners through Him? And can any Bible reader 
doubt that it was the determinate purpose of God that 
the Redeemer should not be destroyed in His infancy? 
Why, then, did He direct Joseph to carry the child 
into Egypt, and assign as a reason that Herod would 
seek to destroy Him ? The objection would lie with 
as much force and propriety against this proceeding, 
as in the case against which it is alleged. We should 
learn that God's ways are not our ways. 

(5.) Though the final salvation of all believers may 
be known to God as a certainty, yet it is as much our 
duty to labor for it as if it depended alone upon our 
diligence. Why should the apostle say to the saints 
at Rome, c; So then it is not of him that willeth, nor 
of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy," 
and then say to the Corinthians, "So run that ye may 
obtain " ? It seems to be a settled rule with some, 
that if they can not see the consistency of two doc- 
trines revealed in the Bible, it is their privilege to re- 
ject the one which is most adverse to their wishes. 
They are not willing to suppose that the Almighty 
has revealed any thing that is above their comprehen- 
sion. 

2. The second objection is an appeal to facts, and 
the object is to prove final apostasy. If they can 
prove final apostasy, of course the contrary doctrine 
may be given up. But why resort to facts if they can 
find other evidence? The appeal is almost equivalent 
to a confession that they have no better means of sup- 
porting their theory. An alleged fact is worth noth- 
ing, except the truth of the fact is clearly substanti- 
ated. The lamentable defection of King Solomon is 
relied upon as a case in point, and I do not know 



164 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

where they will find a better. Now, in order to make 
any legitimate argument of this example, it is re- 
quired that two points should be proved — not merely 
made probable, but proved beyond question : (1.) That 
Solomon was once a true spiritual child of God, and 
(2.) that he was finally lost. The first of these may be 
shown from the Scriptures to be a very strong prob- 
ability, but it is impossible to prove the second; and 
except, that is proved to a certainty, the whole posi- 
tion is lost. It would be as easy to prove that Solo- 
mon was finally saved, as to prove that he was finally 
lost. In the first place, no man can prove, positively, 
that Solomon ever had spiritual life ; in the second 
place, if he had, no one can prove that he lost it ; in 
the third place, no one can prove that he did not re- 
pent of his sins before he died; and, lastly, no one 
can prove that he was not saved. It is rather strange 
that any man of sound judgment should ever advance 
so weak and empty an argument. Those who oppose 
the doctrine of final perseverance seem to think it 
sufficient to produce plausible objections. But this is 
not sufficient; those objections are worth but little 
when the most is made of them that can be. Before 
they .plead their equivocal objection they are bound, 
first, to invalidate the evidence of those scriptures 
which so plainly teach the doctrine. 



THE ETERNAL SECURITY OF THE CHURCH. 165 



CHAPTEE IX. 

ON THE INEVITABLE AND ETERNAL SECURITY OP THE 
CHURCH. 

The doctrine of the certain and everlasting security 
of all the children of God has often been blended with 
that of the final perseverance of the saints : but 
these doctrines are certainly distinct from each other; 
they are not identical ; and it is well that we should 
keep the distinction in view while we are inquiring 
into the great plan of salvation through Christ. Both 
doctrines lead to the same final result, and both es- 
tablish the same great truth, but each has its own 
peculiar place in the great scheme of our eternal re- 
demption. In our perseverance we ourselves are 
agents — we persevere ; but the certain and infallible 
security of God's people belongs to the unalterable 
purpose of God. We have no agency in it. It is 
wholly independent of us, and is an essential part of 
the foundation upon which our salvation is based. 
Eternal salvation is an end to be accomplished, and 
our perseverance is a part of the means by which 
this end is to be attained. 

It is not always safe to rely on arguments drawn 
from general principles, because there may be a 
latent fallacy in the process of deduction which may 
lead to an erroneous conclusion ; and this will be the 
case sometimes when the principle from which we 



166 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

reason is known to be sound, and also when we are 
unable to detect any flaw in the process of reasoning. 
If, therefore, on the subject before us, I should reason 
from general truths, I shall endeavor to compare the 
conclusion with what is clearly taught in the Holy 
Scriptures ; and I ask no greater weight to be given 
to my arguments than a candid and unprejudiced 
consideration will justify. 

I lay it down as an axiom that God never does 
any thing but what He designs to do. This is too 
evident to admit of debate. And I think it should 
not be denied that He actually does every thing that 
He purposes. The design or intention must neces- 
sarily precede the accomplishment of it ; and with 
Him, who sees the end from the beginning, the per- 
formance must inevitably follow the design. I sup- 
pose I shall meet no opposition here, for I presume 
there are few, if any, who have any proper respect 
for the Divine character, or for the truth of His 
word, that would controvert these positions. If, 
therefore, He has purposed the salvation of those 
whom He saves, He must change His purpose, or 
their salvation is infallibly certain. As to the par- 
ticular period of time in God's eternal existence, when 
He first purposed their salvation, that is not the 
present question. The particular point now before 
us is the certainty that He will effectually execute the 
purpose; and this can depend upon nothing but His 
sovereign will. To argue against this certainty is the 
very next thing to controverting self-evident truth; 
therefore, taking no notice of any objection that 
might be deduced by reasoning from principles of 
abstract truth — because one scientific truth can not 
overthrow another, and is not to be admitted in 



THE ETERNAL SECURITY OF THE CHURCH. 167 

opposition to the testimony of the Bible — we will re- 
fer to other objections. Those who can not accept 
our doctrine rely upon arguments drawn from other 
doctrines, which are revealed in Scripture. However 
plausible this mode of reasoning may appear at first 
sight, it will be found utterly impotent in its appli- 
cation to this subject ; for it is useless to resort for 
objections to any thing intermediate between the first 
original purpose and its final consummation, and 
every other doctrine must of necessity have its place 
in the arrangement between these two. Every thing 
pertaining to the plan of salvation must have its 
place between the beginning and the end ; and He who 
sees the end from the beginning must have foreseen 
all that should, or possibly could, intervene between 
the purpose and its ultimate execution. It is ex- 
pressly affirmed that God's purposes shall stand, and 
it is nowhere expressly contradicted ; but that which 
is alleged as objection is their inferences from what 
is taught in the Bible. But there is nothing in the 
arrangements of God's plan of saving His people but 
what He has placed there. And when He purposed 
salvation as an end, did He introduce other matters 
into the plan of execution which would, or possibly 
might, defeat the object in view? There is no way 
to avoid the certain salvation of the glorified church 
but to deny that God purposed her salvation, and 
then we are compelled to admit that God saves sin- 
ners without having any specific design to do it. I 
do not advance this argument as being peculiar to the 
plan of salvation, for it is equally true in respect to 
every thing that God does and designs to do. 

God saves His people by covenant, and not a cove- 
nant by which provision is made for them to save 
15 



168 CHURCH-MEMBERS' HAND-BOOK OF TK£OLOGj' 

themselves, but a covenant by which He has boiled 
Himself by promise and by oath to save them Him- 
self. The certain salvation of His people, therefore, is 
secured by covenant. This covenant is confirmed in 
Christ. He, as the surety of His peoj)le, has already 
performed the whole condition on their part, and is 
accepted and confirmed by His resurrection from the 
dead, and made eternally sure and unchangeable by 
His glorification. 

The condition of the covenant being thus fulfilled, 
the only possible contingency must be whether He will 
faithfully perform His covenant engagements — whether 
He will perform a promise which He has ratified by 
an oath. The security of the Church stands upon this 
very foundation, and the certainty of the eternal sal- 
vation of His covenant people rests upon the inviola- 
ble truth of God's oath. The stipulations of the cove- 
nant, as it respects His people, are most explicitly laid 
down by the apostle, as they had been previously by 
the prophet. This is the covenant: "I will put my 
laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts ; 
and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me 
a people: and they shall not teach every man his 
neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know 
the Lord ; for all shall know me, from the least to the 
greatest : for I will be merciful to their unrighteous- 
ness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remem- 
ber no more." 

Moreover, the Church of Christ is His inheritance. 
If the salvation of the Church is not secure and cer- 
tain, then Christ has no assurance of His inheritance, 
though he has purchased it with His own blood. The 
Church is not only spoken of as the inheritance of 
Christ, but the riches of the glory of His inheritance, 



THE ETERNAL SECURITY OF THE CHURCH. 169 

and as His fullness : "The Church, which is His body, 
the fullness of Him that filleth all in all." Thus we 
see that His mystical body is not complete without the 
Church. I must object to any theory which defeats 
the Son of God of His inheritance — which deprives 
Him of that inheritance which He has purchased with 
His own blood. His people are joint heirs with Him, 
and- if the inheritance is sure to Him, it is equally 
sure to them; and not merely because the inheritance 
is reserved in heaven for them, but because as Christ 
is a Son, so they 'also are the sons and daughters of 
the Lord Almighty. They both have the same inher- 
itance, and both inherit on the same principle, and 
the inheritance is equally sure to both. 

The inevitable certainty of the final salvation of the 
Church appears to be inseparable from that union 
which subsists between Him and His people. This 
doctrine of the union* of Christ and His believing 
people is so abundantly taught in the Holy Scriptures, 
that to deny it would be to ignore the authority of the 
Bible. It is expressed not only by multiplied reitera- 
tion, but in such a variety of forms and illustrations 
that we must admit the doctrine or reject the written 
word ; for the manner in which it is exhibited pre- 
cludes all evasion. Leaving out of notice, for the 
.present, the original purpose which God purposed in 
Himself, let us, as it were, trace this union in a kind 
of historical line, confining ourselves to explicit Script- 
ure statements. V> T e are said to suffer with Him; to 
be crucified with Him; to be dead with Him; to be 
raised together with Him; to be quickened together 
with Him; and to sit together in heavenly places. 
The scriptures here alluded to are easily found; 
and except this bond of union should be broken, it 



170 church-members' hand-book or theology. 

must insure the infallible security and certain salva- 
tion of the Church. But we see that it has passed in- 
tact through the ordeal of sufferings — death and the 
resurrection — into the life and exaltation, to the heav- 
enly place ; so that, having survived these conflicts, 
there can be no danger of dissolution. 

But we are also said to be one with Christ. This 
is identity; but we are not to consider Christ and 
His Church as identical in every respect. Yet, unless 
we will impute to the language of inspiration a vague- 
ness which would render it almost useless as a source 
of Divine instruction, we are forced to concede that, 
in the economy of redemption, there is a point of view 
in which Christ and the Church are one. I will refer 
to some scriptures : "As Thou, Father, art in me, and 
I in Thee, that they also may be one in us." "I in them, 
and Thou in me, that they may be made perfect in 
one.''' 



PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 171 



CHAPTEE X. 

PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 

It has happened that in religion, as "well as in phi- 
losophy, a great diversity of opinions has prevailed in 
the world of mankind. In philosophy we might not 
expect it to be otherwise, because it is the science of 
nature, and we have no other source of knowledge to 
which we may apply for the truth of nature. So much 
of self-evident truth as nature will furnish is a sure 
guide; and so far as we adhere to that, we are in no 
danger of error. But the comparative amount of self- 
evident truth, which nature furnishes in proportion to 
the vast amount of information which the great realm 
of nature contains, compels us to explore extensive re- 
gions in the pursuit of knowledge, oftentimes by the 
aid of mere speculative induction, and much labor of 
thought has to be expended before we can bring our 
results to the test of demonstration. Hence, for want 
of an infallible directory, available at all times and on 
every subject of inquiry, we have a reasonable apol- 
ogy for a variety of opinions in that department of 
knowledge. 

But Ave can make no such excuse for error in mat- 
ters of religion. We have an infallible directory to 
guide us into all truth. There is not a doctrine which 
is essential to the service of God, or to the salvation 
of the soul, but what is laid down with sufficient clear- 



172 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

ness in the Holy Scriptures to guard us from every 
important error. I do not allude exclusively to those 
doctrines the belief of which is essential to salvation, 
but to every doctrine which is an essential part of the 
great plan which God has ordained for accomplishing 
the salvation of sinners, and every duty which is es- 
sential to Christian obedience. If any man, therefore, 
errs through ignorance, he is himself responsible for 
all the evil that may result from that error. We have 
a definite and perfect standard by which we may test 
every article of our faith*, and thus avoid error before 
we embrace it ; or, having embraced it, we may correct 
it. If God had left us, in matters of religion, as He 
has done (in a great degree) in matters of mere sci- 
ence, merely to the exercise of our reasoning powers, 
error might have a plausible excuse; but He has not 
so left us; hence, therefore, he that, in matters of re- 
ligion, believes or practices differently from' God's 
word, has no plea for his error, because he rejects the 
counsel of God against himself. And in the great day 
of decision, when the secrets of every heart shall be 
brought to light, if any man shall be found who held 
erroneous doctrines, the only answer he can make 
will be, that he did not believe God'; and if he has erred 
in any important duty, he can only say that he disobeyed 
God. No vindication will be allowed. He may not 
plead ignorance — he may not plead good intentions ; 
every plea of every kind will be overruled. We have 
the all-sufficient rule of God's word, and among all the 
thousands of false opinions that have been taught and 
believed in this world there is not one that will admit 
of apology before the tribunal of the Righteous Judge. 
If a man who has access to the Bible is ignorant, he 
is ignorant of choice ; if he is in error, he chose error 



PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 173 

in preference to truth. To say thai there is any de- 
fect or insufficiency in the code of Divine truth, or 
that the mind of God is not delivered with sufficient 
clearness to enable the sincere inquirer to learn His 
truth, is a manifest impeachment of the wisdom and 
goodness of God. And he that charges the Bible with 
obscurity calumniates its Author; and no man can 
slander God's word and be guiltless. Whatever may 
be alleged with regard to some particular passages in 
the Bible, all that is material to the primary doctrines 
of the gospel, or to Christian duty, is presented to us 
plainly enough for the instruction of every obedient 
mind ; and if it is not understood, we must not ascribe 
obscurity to the language of Divine Eevelation, but 
we must seek for it in the darkness of our degenerate 
hearts. It is true, as we have said, that a great variety 
of opinions has prevailed in the world, and even 
amongst Christians, on almost eveiy fundamental doc- 
trine of the Bible, and endless controversies have 
grown out of this diversity of sentiments, yet there 
are some doctrines which have been acknowledged by 
almost all who profess to take the Bible for their guide. 
This is some alleviation of the evils attending erron- 
eous principles. It is well, indeed, when there are op- 
posing views in religious concerns, that so many can 
agree on some of the essential truths of the gospel of 
salvation." All agree that there is one God, and only 
one. They agree, also, in more than this one thing. 
There is a general agreement with regard to the 'attri- 
butes which constitute the perfection of the Divine 
nature. It is admitted that God is eternal — self-exist- 
ent; and that all else besides Him is created, and was 
created by Him, and that all things are dependent 
upon Him. It is admitted that He possesses every 



174 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

possible perfection that can pertain to a self-existent 
and infinitely perfect God; and, consequently, that in 
Him there is no imperfection. 

Since, then, God is the only eternal, self-existent Be- 
ing, and all else had a beginning and was created, it 
follows that there was a period in the depths of a past 
eternity when Jehovah dwelt alone, and there was no 
other being in existence ; but He then possessed 
every attribute of His nature in all the fullness of per- 
fection the same as He does now, and as He ever will; 
and though His hands had effected nothing out of 
Himself, yet His infinite mind had ample enjoyment, 
and was in never-ceasing exercise. Whatever His 
power has since then brought to pass, is only the ful- 
fillment of designs which He then entertained while 
He then dwelt in His own eternity, and while the 
original immensity contained no other being than 
Himself. Whatever purpose then existed in the Di- 
vine mind, must of necessity have originated in Him- 
self, for there was nothing in existence but Himself, 
and, therefore, nothing that could give rise to a thought 
or purpose in His mind. And whatever He might do 
or bring to pass pursuant to such a purpose, must 
necessarily be done in view of some specific end or 
particular object contemplated by that purpose; and 
this ultimate end must have a determinate final ref- 
erence to Himself, seeing there was nothing in exist- 
ence at that period out of Himself to which it could 
refer. And this ultimate end, which it was His will 
to accomplish, must be an end worthy of Himself, and 
not beneath the dignity of His infinitely glorious 
character. The ultimate end, therefore, which God has 
in view, in all that He ever has done or ever will do, 
is His own glory ; that is, in other' words, the mani- 



PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 175 

festation of His own infinite perfections. In this He 
proposes to Himself an object worthy of Himself. 
This is the highest end that it is possible for Him to 
have in view, in any thing that He does or permits 
to be done. Not only is it the highest end of which 
we can form any conception, but, from the nature of 
the case, we are fully warranted in saying that He 
could not have any higher aim in view; for as He is 
infinitely supreme in Himself, and as He is His own 
end in all that He purposes and performs, it follows 
that this is the highest end that He can possibly have 
in view in all His works. Having, therefore, a most 
glorious end in view, which it was His purpose to ef- 
fect by the use of means, it was indispensably neces- 
sary that He should have a perfect knowledge of all the 
means which He would employ in fulfilling the great 
design. Whether a wisdom and knowledge short of 
that which is infinite would be adequate to the purpose, 
I do not at present propose to inquire; but shall con- 
tent myself with exhibiting some of the proofs which 
the inspired record brings to bear on the subject: 
(£ Known unto God are all His works from the begin- 
ning of the world." " All tilings are naked and opened 
unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do." 
" God is greater than our heart, and knoiceth all things.'" 
'•His understanding is infinite." "He that is perfect in 
knowledge is with thee." As all things were created by 
Him, it is impossible that He should not know all 
things, and know them to be just what they are. As 
He made all things for Himself, He certainly knew 
what use He would make of every thing that He 
made. It can hardly be thought hazardous to say that 
whatever God may do must necessaril} r be, in some 
way, a manifestation of what He is. He certainly 



176 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

does nothing accidentally (as we term it), nor does He 
do any thing without knowing beforehand what He 
will do. Hence all that He does is done in the prose- 
cution and fulfillment of a specific purpose. 

TTe propose, in this chapter, to consider the doc- 
trines of predestination and election. Although elec- 
tion is included within the category of predestination, 
the two doctrines are distinct from each other ; and 
this distinction should be observed in treating of them, 
especially as in one point of view there is an essential 
distinction. Predestination has respect to the whole 
system of nature — to the whole creation — as well as to 
the scheme of salvation. Election, as the term is gen- 
erally used by theological writers, respects God's plan 
of saving sinners. Election always respects persons. 
Predestination respects things as well as persons, and 
often respects things and events irrespective of per- 
sons. To predestinate is to determine beforehand ; to 
elect is to choose. These two acts of the Divine will 
may be co-extensive, but they are not identical. 

^Ye shall submit to your consideration a few re- 
marks on the subject of predestination. We have 
already said that to predestinate is to determine be- 
forehand. According to this general idea of the term, 
as indicated by its etymology, if God designs or deter- 
mines to do any particular thing at any period of time 
before He actually performs it, this is predestination ; 
and in this sense of the term I suppose that all will 
admit that every thing God does is predestinated by 
Him, for who can think that God does any thing with- 
out intending to do it? But that characteristic of 
Divine predestination which has given rise to so much 
controversy in the theological world relates to the time 
when the act of predestination took place in the 



PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 177 

Divine mind. Many object against eternal predestina- 
tion, but even this objection is not urged very 
strongly against many of God's predeterminations. I 
think I have seen it laid down somewhere, as a funda- 
mental principle, that God predestinated, or fore-or- 
dained, from all eternity, " all things whatsoever 
cometh to pass." I have an objection to this form of 
expression; but notwithstanding this objection, I be- 
lieve that all the wisdom of this world can never 
overturn the doctrine even as it is stated above. The 
truth of the doctrine can never be disproved either by 
the Scriptures or by logical reasoning. But I will 
state the doctrine of eternal predestination in a form 
to which I will subscribe without hesitation. I be- 
lieve there was a determinate purpose in the mind of 
God, before the beginning of His creation, to do all 
that He ever has done, or ever will do, in His creation. 
There are some, I believe, who maintain the doctrine 
of the Divine omniscience in the strictest and most 
comprehensive sense, who yet deny the doctrine of 
predestination. They argue that omniscience does not 
necessarily involve predestination. Others who, I 
suppose, can not well separate the two, and, being un- 
willing to receive the doctrine of predestination, deny 
the doctrine of omniscience. I may notice these 
things before I close my remarks on this subject; but 
I will say here, that I do not rely alone on this kind 
of evidence, and if the doctrine of predestination is 
sustained by the Holy Scriptures, it will be sufficient 
for my purpose, and ought to be sufficient for every 
sincere seeker of Divine knowledge ; for he should re- 
ceive it on the authority of God's word, independently 
of other arguments. In Ephesians (i. 11) it is said, 
" Being predestinated according to the purpose of 



178 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His 
own will." Here we learn that God works all things 
after the counsel of His own will. This shows that 
whatever He does is done in pursuance of a previous 
design. The w^ill of God never changes, and His 
" counsels are of old." He predestinates according to 
a purpose, and according to the same purpose He 
works all things. " The Lord hath made all things 
for Himself." If He made all things for Himself, He 
must have known for what purpose He made them, 
and must have determined so to use them that they 
should answer that specific end. Again, it is said that 
" all things w T ere made by Him and for Him, and by 
Him all things consist." How all this should be, and 
yet He have no previously fixed design, is beyond my 
conception, especially taking into view that all that 
He ever does is with* a determinate design to manifest 
the glory of His own perfections. " Known unto God 
are all His works from the beginning of the world." 
If all His works w^ere not determined by Him from 
the beginning of the world, it is not possible to un- 
derstand how He could know them. 

I deem it unnecessary to say much on the subject 
of universal predestination, because that predestina- 
tion which is so much opposed has particular reference 
to moral and accountable creatures, and of this I shall 
have occasion to speak more at large when treating 
on another part of the subject; but I have expressed 
an intention to say something more on the subject of 
God's omniscience, and its connection with predestina- 
tion. At that time I thought to reserve my remarks 
on these points till the close of this chapter; but I sup- 
pose they would come in place with more propriety at 
present. That God knows all things perfectly, abso- 



PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 179 

lutely, and in the most comprehensive and universal 
meaning of the terms, is a doctrine that very few, I 
believe, have ever called in question ; but this infinite 
knowledge of God has been disputed by some. We 
might expect that if any would limit the Divine wis- 
dom and knowledge, it would be those of the more 
ignorant and weak-minded class of men ; but we find 
Buch among the learned. Men of learning (and, as I 
believe, truly pious), and in high repute as theolog- 
ical writers, have denied the strict omniscience of the 
infinitely wise God. I think I have already suf- 
ficiently proved the doctrine by the explicit testimony 
of God's word ; and it is an unpleasant task to con- 
trovert opinions that are revolting to the moral sense 
of a reverential mind. Those who contend for limi- 
tations of the Divine knowledge admit (I believe) that 
His capacity for knowledge is strictly infinite, and 
that God is capable of knowing all things; but they 
suppose there is no necessity that He should actually 
extend His knowledge to every event and circum- 
stance to which He may extend it. If this idea is 
true in natural theology, it must be true also in Divine 
revelation, for these two witnesses can not contradict 
each other; and the Scriptures teach positively that 
God does actually know all things; that His knowl- 
edge is infinite; that all things were known to Him 
from the beginning of the world. If He does not, in 
fact, know all things — that is, if His knowledge is not 
absolutely infinite — with what propriety can we as- 
cribe omniscience to Him as an attribute of the 
Divine nature? To ascribe omniscience to Him, is 
giving Him rather more glory than is due unto His 
name ; besides, if there is imperfection in His knowl- 
edge, it would seem to follow that there must be cor- 



180 church-members' hand-book -of theology. 

responding imperfection in all His attributes, other- 
wise there would be a want of harmonious perfection 
in the Divine nature totally inconsistent with the. 
glory of the Divine character; and. if we allow cor- 
responding imperfections in His other attributes, we 
effectually destroy the whole idea of a perfect Being. 
The advocates of this most unwarrantable assumption 
adopt it confessedly for the purpose of- making room 
for the perfect freedom of the human will. That we 
find mystery, when we view the freedom of the human 
will, in reference to absolute omniscience, needs no 
proof; it is a matter of consciousness : but in avoid- 
ing this mystery by denying the latter, we are forced 
into mystery equally as great, and, indeed, it involves 
us in still more mystery, for those who embrace this 
strange theory suppose that God purposely hides some 
events from Himself. This is mystery in the abstract. 
He hides an event from Himself in order to leave 
man to his own choice, and thus He knows not what 
man will do till the event transpires. But how can 
He hide an event from His view of which He knows 
nothing? If He does not know of it, how can He 
know how to conceal it from His view? "The eyes 
of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil 
and good." But He removes some of the evil out of 
His sight till it is committed. It is hard to say 
whether there is more mystery or more absurdity in 
this. I w T ish to treat great men with respect, or I 
should apply to this doctrine the term which I think 
properly belongs to it. Moreover, if it is necessary, 
in order to man's freedom of will and accountability, 
that God should exclude from His immediate knowl- 
edge any one act of man, in any one instance, it is 
equally necessary that He should do the same in 



PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 181 

every case with regard to every act, for we are 
equally accountable for every action of life, and for 
one as much as for another; and thus we shall 
make the omniscient God ignorant of all the actions 
of His accountable creatures till He discovers it by 
the event. But there is one thing that it is certain 
He knows — He knows how far His knowledge ex- 
tends, and He declares that He knows all things, and 
no man can doubt it and be innocent. But that the 
absolute foreknowledge of God is inconsistent with 
the freedom of man's will, is what can not be proved 
by the Scriptures. Their doctrine is founded upon 
what they suppose possibly may be in the Godhead ; 
ours is founded upon what God declares is in Him- 
self. Their doctrine is the offspring of human spec- 
ulation; ours is the substance of God's own testimony. 
I have not the least doubt that the absolute fore- 
knowledge of God extends to all things; neither have 
I the shadow of a doubt that the human will is free. 
And to me it appears to be more consistent with 
sound reason to believe what is clearly provable — 
as both these doctrines are, though I might not be 
able to show their agreement — than to reject a doc- 
trine that is expressly affirmed in the word of God, 
in order to adopt a hypothesis that is so exceedingly 
derogatory to the honor of God, as that of imputing 
to Him an imperfection which must vitiate all His 
attributes ; for how can He exercise His justice, or 
His power, or His goodness, according to the perfec- 
tion of their own nature, if His knowledge is limited? 
Are not all these attributes exercised under the direc- 
tion of His knowledge? Who can tell what will 
become of the world and all its inhabitants in time 
and eternity, if the God who governs it is ignorant 



182 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

of what is going on among His accountable sub- 
jects. 

But if God does foreknow with certainty some events 
which yet are contingent upon the will of man, and 
for which men are accountable, it is clear that He may 
also foreknow all events in which the will and ac- 
countability of men are involved ; and that He does 
foreknow such events is matter of the clearest revela- 
tion. The Lord foreknew, and foretold to Moses, that 
Pharaoh would not let the Israelites go out of Egypt; 
and that he sinned in refusing is beyond dispute, for 
he acknowledged his sin, saying, " The Lord is right- 
eous, and I and my people have sinned." Again : 
" Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and 
foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked 
hands have crucified and slain." (Acts ii. 23.) It 
would be easy to refer to a great number of examples 
equally pertinent, but these are fully sufficient to es- 
tablish the point. 

The God that made man and endowed him with a 
moral nature, must of necessity know what that na- 
ture is ; and He knows also to what influences it will 
be exposed ; consequent^ 7 He knows what every man 
will do in every instance, if left to the free exercise of 
his own will, whether the action itself be good or bad. 
But this foreknowledge has nothing to do with the 
moral character of the action. It is certain that God 
never foretells what He does not foreknow ; but 
neither His foreknowledge nor the prediction of the 
event gives moral character to the action. If God 
knows with certainty that any particular event will 
transpire, every one, I suppose, will admit that the 
event will certainly come to pass ; but it is not His 
foreknowledge that makes it certain, for it would be 

I 



PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 183 

just as certain if He did not foreknow it. And this 
is true with regard to the accountable actions of men, 
whether of good actions or of bad actions. God never 
compels men by His power to the performance of any 
action, good or bad, whether willingly or unwillingly, 
but He often interposes with His power to prevent 
men from performing bad actions, even when they 
would willingly do them. You may see this exempli- 
fied in the builders of Babel, and the Scriptures will 
furnish you with any number of examples. 

But I submit to my reader's consideration, that if 
there is any thing that God does not know, then, in 
that thing, He is ignorant. Is the reader prepared to 
say that God is ignorant? Does not your moral sense 
revolt at the thought? And yet, if the hypothesis is 
true, it is unavoidable. Do angels worship a God who 
is ignorant of the affairs of His government? So, in- 
deed, some learned men wo aid have us believe. It 
would be rather uncharitable to suspect that such di- 
vines are more willing to make others believe it than 
they are to believe it themselves. If any man expects 
to stand before God in judgment, I would advise him 
not to make himself responsible for having charged 
God with ignorance, lest he should see anger in the 
face of the Judge. I will adopt no tenet that requires 
to be supported by imputing ignorance to the God of 
heaven. The abettors of this doctrine admit that 
God could know all things, but that He chooses to 
conceal some things from His knowledge; that is, He 
chooses not to know some events till they transpire. 
But this evasive refinement upon the perfections of 
the Divine nature rather aggravates than alleviates 
the reproachful imputation ; for it makes God igno- 
rant as a matter of choice, and thus He is made to 
16 



184 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

choose ignorance rather than knowledge. It certainly 
betrays a most deplorable want of reverence for the 
Divine Majesty to ascribe to Him the least imperfec- 
tion of knowledge, whether willful or involuntary, 
besides the fact that it is a direct contradiction of His 
own testimony. Let us banish the thought with ab- 
horrence, and not give it a moment's entertainment. 
I hope that no such degrading conceptions of the Di- 
vine perfections will find a momentary lodgment in 
the minds of my readers. Our God knows all things, 
past, present, and to come ; all things actual and pos- 
sible ; all contingencies, dependencies, and possibili- 
ties, both fundamental and incidental. Such is the 
perfection of His infinite knowledge that He can not 
willingly or by necessity hide any thing from His all- 
comprehensive view. From everlasting to everlasting 
His knowledge embraces all things within His own 
infinite immensity, without exception, limitation, or 
modification. 

But it is alleged that foreknowledge does not necessa- 
rily involve predestination. And perhaps it might not 
be easy to prove that simple foreknowledge does involve 
predestination ; but to make any argument of this 
against the doctrine of Divine predestination, it will 
be necessary for the objector to show that the fore- 
knowledge of God is ever exercised independently of 
His other attributes, which. I think, can not be made to 
appear. It is very ^doubtful whether any one perfec- 
tion of the Divine nature can be exercised alone with- 
out necessarily involving the exercise of other at- 
tributes in connection with it. It has been thought 
that the attribute of self-existence necessarily compre- 
hends all the infinite perfections of Divinity, and it 
would not be easy to defend the contrary. However 



PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 185 

this ma}' be, it is quite safe to say that there is no 
possibility of separating those perfections of Divinity 
which constitute the one infinite perfection of the 
Godhead ; and, considering omniscience in connection 
with other attributes of the Divine nature, I think 
it does necessarily involve predestination. God knows 
in all cases what will be best; His infinite goodness 
must incline Him to do what is best; His holy will 
must determine Him to choose what is best. This is 
"predestination! Unless we will say that He does not 
always do what is best, I can not see how predestina- 
tion can be evaded. To predestinate is to determine 
beforehand ; and if God always knows beforehand 
what will be best, and determines beforehand to do 
what is best, He must necessarily predestinate all 
things that He ever does. And if He is immutable — 
if " He is in one mind" — then His predestination must 
be as eternal as Himself. On the point now under 
consideration, absolute foreknowledge is a conceded 
principle, and the question is, Does this foreknowledge 
involve predestination ? Absolute prescience necessa- 
rily includes the knowledge of what is best in all 
things; and if, with this knowledge, He chooses to do 
what is best, wherein does this act of choice differ 
from an act of predestination ? To choose is to de- 
termine, and to determine a future event is predesti- 
nation. His omniscience precludes the possibility of 
His making a wrong choice, and His immutability pre- 
cludes the possibility of His changing that choice. I 
am aware that some have held forth the doctrine that 
God does change His mind ; but if this is so, we can 
not learn His character from His word, for He ex- 
pressly affirms the contrary. I could extend these 
arguments much further, but I deem it unnecessary. 



186 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

The doctrine of the freedom of the human will is true, 
but the inference that it is inconsistent with Divine 
omniscience and immutability is false. 

Election. 

Having treated of predestination in a general point 
of view, we will proceed to consider the subject of elec- 
tion. There has been more controversy on this doc- 
trine than almost any other in the whole body of the- 
ology. Many have misunderstood the doctrine; some 
have either ignorantly or intentionally misrepresented 
it; others have perverted it by misapplying it. The 
word elect signifies to choose; and when we find the 
word in the Bible, this is the sense in which Ave should 
understand it. And if we find it apparently teaching 
a doctrine which we can not understand, or which we 
can not reconcile with other doctrines, or which is re- 
pulsive to our feelings, we are not at liberty to put a 
different meaning on the Avord, for this would be no 
better than making Scripture. 

The advocates and opposers of the doctrine of elec- 
tion argue, for the most part, on different principles, 
and unless there is some standard of ultimate appeal 
which both parties would acknowledge, and by which 
both parties would consent that their arguments should 
be tested, there can be little hope of a termination of 
the controversy. 

But waving this for the present, we will notice some 
doctrines which are erroneously supposed to be neces- 
sarily involved in the doctrine of election, but which, 
in fact, have no immediate connection with it. 

1. And first, we will discourse a little on reprobation. 
Of those who reject the doctrine of election, there are 



i 



PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 187 

some who make a great parade about reprobation, as 
though it must necessarily follow if election be true. 
But this is palpable sophistry. And while dealing 
their vindictive anathemas against the doctrine of rep- 
robation, they suppose they are demolishing the foun- 
dations of election. Except what they do by way of 
creating and confirming prejudices against the truth, 
their labor is lost. Perhaps very few of those who de- 
claim so bitterly against reprobation have any definite 
idea of what they mean by the term they use. If, by 
reprobation, it is understood that the Almighty, by an 
eternal decree, doomed men to everlasting punishment, 
irrespective of their character and works, we may very 
justly denounce the doctrine. But why make so much 
ado about it ? I know not a man upon earth who 
avows his belief in it; and if there are any that do, I 
should not feel obliged to debate the question with them. 
But supposing I have stated the doctrine correctly (and 
I know that some do understand it in that light), I 
deny that any such idea is involved in the doctrine of 
election ; and to argue against the doctrine of election 
on that ground , is misrepresentation. But further : If it 
were true that such a decree has been ordained, and 
the truth of it could be proved, it would not in the 
least affect the doctrine of election, because it would 
have no necessary connection with it. Such an act of 
reprobation would be, and necessarily must be, wholly 
distinct from an act of election. To confound the two, 
evinces a great want of discrimination. Neither of 
these acts would necessarily include the other. If one 
is true, it does not follow that the other is true. Each 
of these acts would be independent of the other. The 
decree of reprobation would affect those only who are 
the objects of such decree, and none else, and the de- 



188 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

cree of election would affect none else but the objects of 
election. Beprobation would respect none but those 
who are lost, and election respects those only who are 
saved. The two acts contemplate different and opposite 
results, and respect different objects — that is, different 
persons — and no force of construction can make them 
identical. In the great day of consummation, when the 
Judge of all will say to those on His right hand, " Come, 
ye blessed of my Father," this sentence will have no 
relation to the others; but a distinct sentence of "De- 
part, ye cursed," must go forth from the tribunal against 
them, and the latter sentence will have no respect to 
the heirs of the kingdom. And so, likewise, if there 
were an irrevocable decree of predestination, before 
the foundations Qf the earth were laid, fixing the eter- 
nal state of the wicked, such decree would not elect the 
righteous, nor in any way affect them for good or 
for evil; but there must be a distinct and independent 
act choosing them to eternal life. It would be just as 
necessary, in the one case, that there should be two 
distinct acts of predestination, as, in the other, that 
there should be two distinct sentences of final decision. 
Those who make such an outcry against the doctrine 
of reprobation, with a view to overthrow the doctrine 
of election, may possibly succeed to some extent in 
misleading the credulous 'and inattentive reader; but 
they succeed in an evil work, for it is highly sinful to 
employ false reasoning on sacred subjects. The truth 
of God stands in no need of such satanical assistance; 
for whether a doctrine be true or false, it is wicked to 
employ false reasoning in the discussion ; and if they 
gain any advantage by it, the acquisition is the reward 
of dishonesty. The opposers of the doctrine of election 
are apt to make reprobation a first and last resort; but 



PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 189 

the believer in election, if he rightly appreciates his 
means of defense, may always have an effectual reply 
ready for the attack. He has nothing to do but to tell 
his opponent that reprobation has no connection with 
election — that he has left the question in debate, and is 
not legitimately entitled to an answer till he proves 
the truth and applicability of his objection; and this 
his adversary will never be able to do. 

2. Equally unfounded, and very similar to the pre- 
ceding objection, is the notion that some have enter- 
tained, that -if election is true, the Almighty created 
one part of the human family to be saved and the 
other to be lost. But the doctrine of election involves 
no such consequence. That some will be saved and 
others lost, is true, and clearly taught in the Scriptures, 
but the Bible does not teach that they were created for 
that purpose. If any choose to say that the fact that 
some will be saved and others lost, involves the doc- 
trine of election, they may prove their inference if they 
can, but that would not prove that election causes the 
salvation of some and the loss of others as the end for 
which they were created. Election of itself saves none, 
and it is neither the cause nor the occasion of the loss 
of any. I repeat, that election has respect to those 
only who are saved; and there is no difficulty in show 
ing the reason why sinners are lost. 

3. There has been some controversy on the question 
whether Christ died for the elect only. Let this ques- 
tion be decided which way it may, it does not affect 
the doctrine of election. If Christ died for the whole 
human family, the doctrine of election would stand 
just where it does. The elect were not chosen as per- 
sons for whom Christ should die, but as persons who 
were the objects of God's saving love. It is true they 



190 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

must be saved through the atonement of Christ, and 
can not be saved without it any more than the non- 
elect; and there is an all-sufficiency in the atonement 
for the salvation of the whole world. But Christ did 
not die for the elect as elect; He died for sinners as sin- 
ners. There was an inexorable necessity that Christ 
should die for sinners because they are sinners; but 
there was no necessity that He should die for the elect 
because they are elect. The elect can not be saved 
without the atonement; but it is not because they are 
elect, but because they are sinners. Election does not 
bring us to Christ, neither does non-election keep us 
from Christ. Election does not invest us with any 
privilege to come to Christ, neither does non-election 
deprive any man of his privilege to come to Christ. 
All have the privilege of coming to Him — and all have 
the same privilege. Election does not give any one 
any power or ability to come to Christ, nor does it de- 
prive any one of such power or ability. The reason 
that any man does not come to Him, is because he will 
not come. Neither does election give any man a will 
to come to Christ, neither does election or non -election 
make or keep any man in a state of unwilingness. 
God chooses His people, but this does not make them 
choose Him, or keep others from choosing Him. Elec- 
tion effects no change in the heart of a sinner, nor 
does it prevent any sinner from changing his own 
heart or his course of life; neither does it prevent the 
Lord from working in sinners that change of heart 
which is necessary to their salvation. Without re- 
pentance no sinner has any ground to hope for pardon ; 
and election prevents no man from repenting, neither 
does it give any man any power or disposition to re- 
pent. 



PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 191 

Election does not implant the love of God in the 
soul of the elect, nor does it prevent the non-elect 
from loving God, nor deprive them of any ability to 
love Him, or debar them of the privilege. It is the 
privilege of Satan, who is irrevocably doomed to eter- 
nal damnation, to love God, to repent of his sins, and 
to forsake his wicked ways, and also it is his duty to 
do all this. Without faith we can not be saved, but 
the elect have no more power to believe than the non- 
elect ; and the non-elect have as much ability and 
privilege to believe in Christ and be saved as the elect 
have, and they are welcome to come to Him for sal- 
vation ; and all that do come will be saved. They 
have the same means of grace, the same opportuni- 
ties, the same invitations and encouragements, and the 
same assurance of acceptance. Election does not re- 
move the curse of the law from the one any more 
than it does from the other ; neither are the non -elect 
held under condemnation because they are not of the 
elect; for the elect are "the children of wrath even as 
others." It is as much the privilege of the non-elect 
to pray and seek the Lord with assurance of salvation, 
as it is of the elect. The Lord's election of His people 
has done no injury to any others. It debars them 
from no facilities or advantages for salvation. It does 
not doom the non-elect to hell, nor keep them out of 
heaven. 

4. It is objected to the doctrine of election that the 
elect will be saved let them do what they will — that 
they may live in sin, and still be saved. JNTow, if elec- 
tion were the whole of salvation, there might be some 
seeming plausibility in this objection ; but the Script- 
ure doctrine of election does not necessitate any such 
result. Election does not supersede the necessity of 
17 



192 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

faith and repentance, love to God and holiness of 
life, or any of the means or spiritual qualifications 
necessary to salvation. God's people are chosen to 
salvation through Christ; but not chosen to salvation 
independently of the necessary conditions and means 
of salvation, but as including all that is necessary to 
the final consummation of the great end to which 
they were elected. As a counterpart to this objec- 
tion, it is urged that if election be true, one who is not 
of the elect may pray, and strive, and seek with his 
whole heart, and do the best he can, and yet he can 
not be saved. But this is false reasoning; no such in- 
ference is dedncible from the doctrine of election. 
There is nothing in the doctrine of election that pre- 
cludes the possibility of salvation to any sinner. If 
there is nothing else in the way of your salvation, 
election will not prevent it. There is nothing in elec- 
tion that conflicts with any other doctrine taught in 
the Bible. "Do what he will the elect will be saved," 
and, "Do what he will the non-elect will be lost." 
This is substantially the argument of those who do, 
not understand the doctrine: and, in fact, they do not 
understand their own argument; for, in point of fact, 
every man does what he will, whether elect or non- 
elect — whether he is saved or lost — and election has no 
influence on his will. So it is said also that if a man is 
not elected, he has no possible chance of being saved. 
But why not? If he repents of his sins and forsakes 
them, and believes in Christ, will he not be saved? 
lie has the same chance to repent and believe that all 
others have; and the gospel assures us that all who 
do these things shall be saved. And can any be saved 
without it? In respect to all the means of obtaining 
salvation, and all that is required of sinners in order 



PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 193 

tc their being saved, the non-elect stand upon the 
very same ground as the elect. 

Suppose that, before the foundation of the world, 
God, having prospectively in His view all the human 
family as if then present before Him, and, without 
regard to any good or evil that might attach to their 
character, He had then decreed, unconditionally, a 
certain number of elect persons to inevitable and eter- 
nal damnation, (and this is, perhaps, the worst form 
of reprobation that misrepresentation can devise,) I 
would ask if this inflexible decree would be of any ad- 
vantage to those who were not of this devoted number? 
I think no man will pretend that they would be 
in any respect benefited by it ; for it would be im- 
possible to point out in what respect their eternal in- 
terests could be favorably affected by such decree. 
And now, reversing the case, suppose that, instead of 
this horrible decree. God had ordained, by an immuta- 
ble decree, that a certain number of selected persons 
should, irrespective of all considerations, be made 
eternally happy and glorious in heaven ; I would in- 
quire in what way could this decree injuriously affect 
the eternal interests of those who were not included 
in this selected number? Xo man can show it. It 
would not change their condition ; it would not change 
their moral relations to God ; it would not change 
their moral character; it would not affect them either 
for good or evil in any respect whatever. Such de- 
crees would affect those who were the objects of them, 
and none else. Hence none but "those who would be 
affected by them would have any ground of complaint. 
Even, therefore, upon this hypothesis, there would be 
no ground to charge the sovereign election of God with 
injurious discrimination. But the doctrine of election 



191 dHtJROH-MEMBERS' HAND-BOOK OF THEOLOGY. 

ns taught in the Bible, and as held by those who are 
now called Calvinists, is far less liable to objection 
than the hypotheses above presented. What, then, are 
we to think of those enemies of sovereign grace who 
impiously charge the Almighty with being unjust, and 
apply to Him the odious appellation of tyrant, because 
He is infinitely gracious to His own chosen people, 
without doing any injury, or even unkindness, to those 
who obstinately persist in a course of rebellion against 
Him, and perish in their sins, while a free salvation is 
presented to their acceptance? 

Let us make an example of an individual case ; and 
for this purpose I will select the reader : Suppose God, 
before the foundation of the world, in foresight of your 
guilt and ruin, set His love upon you, and resolved 
that He would redeem you from condemnation, and 
sanctify you by His Spirit, and save you eternally, to 
the praise of the glory of His grace, would you object 
to it? Are you unwilling that He should then make 
you an object of His saving mercy? Can you say con- 
scientiously that you are not willing that God should, 
even before the world was made, entertain a gracious 
purj)ose of saving your wretched and guilty soul, and 
keep that purpose in his heart till He should consum- 
mate it in your eternal salvation ? If you know the 
worth of God's love, I can not believe you would object 
to such a design of mercy. Well, this is election. 
This is the very election taught in the Scriptures ; and 
the principle is the same, whether it respects you as 
an individual sinner, or whether applied to the innu- 
merable multitude that will inherit salvatiou. Now, 
on the other hand, does all this grace bestowed upon 
you do me any injustice? Does it injure me # at all? 
Do I fall because you stand? If you stand, it is by 



PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 195 

the grace of God ; if I fall, it is by ray own sin. God, 
in His infinite mercy, has provided an all -sufficient 
atonement, and proclaims salvation through this atone- 
ment to a guilty world, assuring sinners that whoso- 
ever will accept this salvation shall receive the bless- 
ing. But I refuse this salvation — I choose to live in 
sin : I will not accept the provisions of His grace, but 
freely choose to pursue my own voluntary course of 
unrighteousness till I die in my guilt ; and God did 
not choose, either before I was born or after, to resist 
or change my will, but to leave me to my own choice. 
This is non -election. And. moreover, this is all the 
reprobation that any man can impute to Divine pre- 
destination, without a violation of truth. 

5. The doctrine of election is supposed by some to 
interfere with the freedom of the human will ; but this 
is a mere unfounded assumption. It has never been 
proved, and never can be. But suppose it could be 
proved, yet if the doctrine of election is proved also, 
they would still be bound to prove that it is impossi- 
ble for both doctrines to be true, before they could de- 
rive any advantage from the objection. If God, before 
the foundation of the world, chose Paul as an heir of 
eternal glory, it is impossible to show, or even to con- 
ceive, how that act could in any way affect the freedom 
of will in any other man, or even in Paul himself. It 
is remarkable with what extreme jealousy some men 
seem disposed to guard the doctrine of free-will, even 
where there is no danger of invasion. The freedom of 
the human will is never in danger, and can not be. 
The will has in itself all the freedom of which it is 
capable in its own nature : and, in most instances, if 
the subject was critically examined, the foundation of 
this sensitive jealousy would be found to consist in 



196 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

this: that the objectors are not willing that God 
should have any will that is not in accordance with 
their will. If you think the doctrine of election limits 
or abridges the free exercise of the human will, and 
that this may consistently be offered as an objection to 
the doctrine, I would reason with you a little on the 
subject. How much freedom of will do you claim as 
your right ? I will give all that you can claim. As 
to freedom of will in the ordinary concerns of life, 
and when our spiritual relations to God are not spe- 
cially involved, there will be no dispute between us. 
In reference to our important relations to God, I will 
say that He has given you a holy, just, and good law, 
and it is your, right and your privilege, as a rational 
and accountable being, to love this law or to dislike 
it ; being responsible for your choice, God has given 
you this liberty as a right — an indefeasible right. 
This liberty you exercise, and have always exercised, 
unrestricted and unconstrained. You have always 
chosen of yourself and for yourself, whether you would 
love and obe} 7 this law, or whether you would not. 
Now, we have all freely disobeyed this law, and, as 
responsible subjects of it, we have incurred its con- 
demnation. In addition to this, the great Sovereign 
has provided an ample atonement for our sins, and in 
the gospel He has set forth Christ as an able and will- 
ing Savior of sinners, and as the only way of salva- 
tion ; and has further assured us, that if we choose 
this way of salvation we shall obtain it. Now, the 
way of life and the way of death is set before you, and 
the Author has given you the liberty, as a right, to 
choose which you will. Here you have presented to 
your free choice salvation, with all its manifold bless- 
ings, on the one hand; condemnation, with all its 



PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 197 

fearful consequences, on the other; and it is your 
right, your privilege, to choose for yourself; and there 
is nothing that does or can debar you of this privilege, 
or force or compel your decision. You may^ and you 
do, choose for yourself, and the consequences of your 
choice you may and you must receive. If you freely 
choose the Lord, He is your Lord and your Savior, 
and it is your right and privilege to choose Him. It 
is also your right and your privilege to refuse. More- 
over, you have an unrestricted right to choose your 
own time for making your choice. You are at liberty 
to choose the Lord to-day, or to procrastinate as long 
as you will. There is no compulsion or prohibition. 
A friend or an enemy may persuade you to determine 
now what you will do, or to postpone your time of 
choosing indefinitely; but there neither is, nor can be, 
any force put upon the freedom of your will. Now, what 
more freedom of will do you claim. This is all the 
freedom that can belong to the will of a rational be- 
ing ; but if you can conceive of any freedom of will 
beyond this, I will concede it to you. Now, with all 
this plenitude of liberty which you claim and possess — ■ 
and I believe it is your sacred right — I must appeal to 
your candor to say whether }^ou are willing to concede 
to your Maker equal rights and privileges? If you 
are, I call upon you to renounce your objection to God's 
election — to His eternal election. Or do you assert a 
claim to control the high prerogatives of a Sovereign 
God ? If it is your right and privilege, in the free ex- 
ercise of your willi to choose God or not to choose Him, 
has He not an equal right and privilege to choose you 
or not to choose you? If, in the free exercise of your 
liberty, you have a right to choose your own time to 
make your choice, has He not an equal right to deter- 



198 church-members' hand book of theology. 

mine the time of making His choice ? If He chose 
you to salvation before the foundation of the world, 
yet He leaves you at liberty to choose Him whenever 
you will ; and this liberty you do, in fact, exercise at 
your own oj)tion. But perhaps you will say, that if 
God does not choose you there is no possibility of your 
being saved. I reply, that if you do not choose Him, 
there is no possibility of your being saved. Turn 
which way you may, if you object to election on the 
ground of freedom of will, you claim a prerogative 
which you are not willing to accord to your I\Xaker. 
Supposing it to be possible the free exercise of God's 
will should conflict with the free exercise of your will, 
so that the one must yield to the other, whose rights 
are paramount? Which has the prior claim? But 
these never do so clash as that the choice of one — that 
is, the election of one party — will deprive the other 
party of a free election. 

If you are curious to know whether you are one of 
the elect, you should first decide the question whether 
you have chosen Christ as your Savior. Jf you, as a 
lost, guilty, helpless, and justly condemned sinner, put 
your whole trust and^all your hope in a crucified Re- 
deemer, rejecting all other confidences, you have all 
the assurance that God ; s promises can give jow that 
you shall be saved; and if you have thus chosen 
Christ, you have all the evidence that you can need 
that God has chosen you to salvation, for He chooses 
to save all that come to Him b} r Christ as the only 
way. And those whom He has not chosen will not come, 
and therefore die in their sins; and the very fact that 
you have chosen Christ is the best evidence that you 
can have that you are one of the elect number: "All 
whom the Father giveth me shall come to me : and him 



PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 199 

that cometh to me I will in nowise cast out." It is 
not essential to your salvation that you should know 
or believe that you are one of the elect; but it is essen- 
tial that you receive Christ by faith. W*hy, then, 
perplex yourself with a question that God has not di- 
rectly revealed, and neglect those things which He has 
made known and which are material to your eternal 
happiness? 

We will now attend to the direct proofs of the doc- 
trine of election as that doctrine is taught in the Bi- 
ble. And reverting to what has been said on a pre- 
ceding page, we repeat, that to elect is to choose; hence 
the elect are the chosen. To exemplify this, we will 
notice a few examples, and a few will be sufficient: 
God chose Abraham as the head, or father, and in 
him one branch of his posterity, out of all the world, to 
be a peculiar people to Himself, for the purpose of 
making them a great nation upon which He would be- 
stow great blessings, and confer upon them special 
privileges above all the nations. Hence they are 
called His chosen or elect people. 

God also chose Cyrus, long before he was born, to 
be His instrument in overthrowing the city of Baby- 
lon, and calls him His elect. God chose Aaron to be 
His high priest, and David to be king over Israel, 
and Paul to be the apostle to the Gentiles. And it is 
needless to multiply examples ; it is only necessary to 
remark that in all these cases God might have chosen 
others, if it had been His will to do so; and the word 
is used in its usual acceptation 

But the election of which we are now to speak par- 
ticularly, is the election of those who are chosen to 
salvation through Christ; and we shall understand 
the scriptures adduced according to the obvious mean- 



200 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

ing of the words and phrases employed by the inspired 
writers. To understand them otherwise, would im- 
ply that the Holy Spirit used language that was cal- 
culated to deceive the reader. 

The election of the Lord's people to grace and 
glory, as we have it taught in the Bible, bears the fol- 
lowing characteristics: It is — (1) sovereign, (2) eter- 
nal, (3) unconditional, (4) personal. This I undertake 
to establish by testimony that no obedient mind will 
presume to impeach. 

In 2 Tim. i. 9, we read: "Who hath saved us, and 
called us with a holy calling, not according to our 
works, but according to His own purpose and grace, 
winch was given us in Christ Jesus before the world 
began." This saving and calling is according to His 
own purpose and grace. Is not this a sovereign act? 
If this is not sovereignty, I know not what meaning 
you will attach to the word. It is also according to 
His grace given us in Christ Jesus, not according to 
our works — no conditions of repentance, faith, good 
works, or good moral character, as a ground upon 
which this grace is given us. If there had been it 
would not be grace, but the reward of merit. It is ex- 
pressly said that it is not according to our works. 
No conditions to be performed by us are so much as 
hinted; but according to the tenor of the passage they 
are necessarily excluded. This purpose an d^ the grace 
given us is before the world began. Surely we may 
allow this to be eternal! Before ever there was a sin 
committed on earth, or any man to commit sin. This 
is going far enough back for any purpose the believer 
in election has in view. Good scholars translate, "be- 
fore eternal ages." I may notice this form of expres- 
sion before I close this chapter ; but to proceed : "Hath 



PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 201 

saved us and called us.' 1 The grace is "given us.' 7 The 
language is personal throughout. It can not be meant 
of nations, for it would not be true in that applica- 
tion ; for no nation, as such, is saved: for the same 
reason it can not refer to religious privileges and the 
means of grace, neither to designation to office nor 
special service. It is personal salvation. 

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings 
in heavenly places in Christ: according as He hath 
chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, 
that we should be holy and without blame before him 
in love: having predestinated us to the adoption of 
children by Jesus Christ unto Himself, according to 
the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the 
glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us ac- 
cepted in the Beloved." (Eph. i. 3-6.) Whatever of 
mystery and sublimity there may be in this passage, 
and in the general connection in which it stands, there 
is no force of construction that can be put upon the 
terms, if we allow words to have any fixed significa- 
tion at all, by which election can be excluded from it. 
Each of those characteristics of the doctrine as stated 
above are distinctly expressed. "Before the founda- 
tion of the world." We understand this phrase accord- 
ing to the obvious meaning of the words. His choos- 
ing us in Christ, His predestinating us to the adoption 
of children, are acts of high and imminent sovereignty, 
and it is expressly said to be according to the good 
pleasure of His will. Xot only do we find the terms 
used to be personal, but the matter of the text will 
admit of no other application. The election here 
taught provides for our being made holy and without 
blame — it is election to both grace and glory. 



202 CI1URUI members' hand-book of theology. 

In the 11th verse of this same chapter we read : " In 
whom (Christ) we have obtained an inheritance, being 
predestinated according to the purpose of Him who 
worketh all things after the counsel of His own will." 
Again the sovereign will of God is expressly referred 
to. and it is more particularly against this point that 
opposition is chiefly directed. 

"For whom He did foreknow, He also did predes- 
tinate, to be conformed to the image of His Son, that 
He might be the first-born among many brethren. 
Moreover, whom He did predestinate, them He also 
called: 'and whom He called, them He also justified: 
and whom He justified, them He also glorified." ("Rom. 
viii. 29, 30.) Prodigious labor and ingenuity have 
been employed to invalidate the testimony of this 
scripture, but it has all been in vain ; and such labor 
must forever be in vain. It stands to this day, and 
ever will remain an unshaken proof of the doctrine of 
eternal election. Nothing can be plainer than that 
the foreknown, and the predestinated, and the called, 
and the justified, and the glorified, are the self-same 
persons; and those persons are predestinated to be 
conformed to the image of the Son of God. No force 
of construction that can be employed can make this 
apply to any nation that ever was upon the earth. 
The language used by the inspired writer is strictly 
personal, and remarkably definite. These persons, as 
foreknown, are predestinated to a designation distinctly 
specified ; that is, to be conformed to the image of 
Christ. This, without doubt, is the highest state of 
glorification to which any created being can be ex- 
alted. We have here, in one short sentence, the pre- 
destination and the ultimate end; then follow the 
steps of the Divine procedure, by which the previous 



PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 203 

design is carried out into final accomplishment. 
They are called, justified, and .glorified. The whole 
passage, when understood according to the plain and 
obvious meaning of the language used by the apostle, 
is so plain, so explicit, that nothing but the perverse 
ingenuity of unsanctified human learning will attempt 
to devise an}' way to avoid the doctrine which is so 
plainly taught. The passage, when interpreted accord- 
ing to the plain import of the words, is in perfect 
agreement with the general scope of the apostle's ar- 
gument in the connection : it also accords with the 
whole of the doctrinal part of the epistle. Those who 
have attempted to evade the true doctrine of this text 
have been compelled to adopt a scheme of interpreta- 
tion which requires them to put strange and unwar- 
rantable meanings upon words and phrases which 
they will not bear, entirely different from their well- 
known and acknowledged signification, in ordinary . 
composition, and which they themselves would not 
pretend to attach to similar language when used on 
any other subject. It ma}^ be doubted whether they 
themselves ever employ the same forms of expression 
in that sense in which they pretend to interpret the 
inspired record. The object is manifestly to screen 
their preconceived opinions from the destructive force 
of Divine truth. Their method of explication is full 
of discord, confusion, and inconsistency, and never can 
be made to harmonize with the context and general 
scope of the apostle's discussion, or with the tenor of 
the epistle throughout. 

If the doctrine of election, as taught in this passage, 
was injurious to *the interests of any rational being ; 
if it was disparaging to the honor of God ; if it was 
inconsistent with the perfection of any of the Divine 



attributes ; if it was at variance with any other doc- 
trine of the gospel ; or if this was the only place in 
the Bible where the doctrine is taught, there might 
then be some seeming apology for those who put such 
forced and unnatural constructions upon the plain 
revelations of Divine inspiration ; but there is nothing 
of all this involved in it. The radical principle from 
whicht his opposition to God's electing grace emanates 
might be detected in every human heart, if honest in- 
quisition was to be made ; but how much better it 
would be if we would all bow with reverence to the 
ordinances of a Supreme God ! 

"When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, 
with His mighty angels, in flaming fire, and He shall 
sit upon the throne of His. glory, and before Him shall 
be gathered all nations, He will say to His own sepa- 
rate people, " Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit 
the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of 
the world." This kingdom is prepared for them — the 
very persons to whom He speaks, and in distinction 
from those on His other hand. Prepared for them 
from the foundation of the world ! Will any sane man 
say this kingdom was prepared for those on the left 
hand? 

I might add to the foregoing quotations a number of 
others, which go to establish the doctrine under con- 
sideration ; but the mind that would resist the evi- 
dence of these would not yield to any amount of 
proof. The doctrine would not be rejected for the 
want of evidence, but for want of a disposition to sub- 
mit to it. 

To what has been advanced on this subject I will 
now subjoin a few remarks, which I submit to the 
reader's reflection. 



PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 205 

1. It is not possible that God can be under obliga- 
tion to any of His creatures. Such obligation would 
be utterly inconsistent with His independence, and 
would also divest Him of His sovereignty. Obligation 
necessarily involves accountability: but what creature 
dare demand of Him, "What doest Thou?" Yet, if 
He is under obligation to any creature (man or angel), 
that creature has a right to call Him to account. If 
it be alleged that if God makes a promise, He is under 
obligation to fulfill that promise, we admit it; but 
the obligation is to Himself, and not to him to whom 
the promise is made. What are we to understand 
by any promise that God makes to man ? When 
God made a promise to Abraham, He merely revealed 
to him what He intended to do. He never promises 
to do any thing but what He previously intends to 
do ; and He is no more under obligation to do it after 
the promise than He was before. God is under obli- 
gation to Himself to maintain inviolate all His perfec- 
tions, and therefore He is under obligation to perform 
all His purposes. If He reveals any particular pur- 
pose to any man, this gracious disclosure of His de- 
sign to that man can not bring Him under obligation 
to the man. I speak thus because I am aware that 
there is a latent impression on the mind of almost 
every one. that God ought to do something for him, 
and that even if he does deserve punishment, others 
also deserve it; and that it would be unfair (softening 
the term) for God to do that for another which He 
does not do for him. But if He has a right to do 
what He will with His own, and to bestow unmerited 
favor on whomsoever He pleases, the exercise of this 
right does no injustice to others. If none deserve His 
mercy—if all deserve His wrath — and He is good to 



206 CHUR.H members' hand-book of theology. 

all, as He certainly is, surely no one is entitled to 
complain because He is infinitely gracious to a part. 
God's election is an act of sovereign grace, and not 
compliance with an obligation. If any man object to 
discriminating grace, let him read the parable in the begin- 
ning of the twentieth chapter of Matthew and see if he is 
not rebuked by the application our Savior makes of it. 

2. If we consider the condition into which we have 
brought ourselves by our sins — under a just condem- 
nation — and also take into view the fact that we are 
all enemies to God by nature, and have in ourselves 
no real disposition to love and serve God, or seek His 
sanctifying Spirit, we must see that there arises from 
these considerations a necessity — if God saves any — that 
He must choose the objects of His saving mercy. If, 
all alike, we will not come to Him, is it not manifest 
that He must of Himself choose those whom He will 
bring to Himself? 

3. The objections made to the doctrine of sovereign 
election will apply with equal justice and propriety 
to the dispensations of Divine Providence. There is a 
notable analogy between the dispensations of God's 
providence and the dispensations of His grace, consid- 
ered in reference to His sovereign will. One man is 
born into the world with the elements of bodily disease 
in his natural constitution ; a sufferer from his cradle 
to his grave— perhaps never passes a day without suf- 
fering from an inborn defect of physical constitution — 
while his neighbor, or perhaps his brother, comes into 
the world with a more perfect physical organization ; 
enjoys good health, with all the activity and strength 
of a sound athletic frame. The one is not to blame for 
his misfortune, and the other does not owe his advan- 
tages to himself. It is the work of a* sovereign God, who 



PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION. 207 

works all things after the counsel of His own will. ~No 
man can overlook these discriminating providences, or 
show the reason why it is so. 

4. The doctrine of election is in perfect accordance 
with the dispensations of grace in the conversion of 
sinners. How often does it happen that the minister 
preaches for years to the same congregation ! They all 
hear the same gospel — all have the same means of 
grace — the same advantages — and here and there one is 
converted ; and of those who are converted, it fre- 
quently occurs that some who ajypear soft and easily 
affected are left still in their unbelief, while others of 
the most stubborn heart, and who did not fear God nor 
regard man, have been subdued by sovereign grace. If 
the conversion of sinners is the prerogative of the Divine 
Spirit, we are compelled to resolve these discriminating 
dispensations into the "good pleasure of His will." 

5. Some think that even if the doctrine of election is 
true, and clearly taught in the Bible, it ought not to be 
preached. Xow I think that no one doctrine ought to 
be preached to the exclusion or neglect of other funda- 
mental doctrines; but if the doctrine of election is re- 
vealed in the Scriptures, we ought to believe it, for it 
is profitable for instruction and growth in grace. But 
it can not be of use for our sanctification unless it is be- 
lieved. Every truth revealed in the word of God ought 
to be believed, and therefore it is right to teach the 
whole truth. The false representations that some make 
of the doctrine, and the erroneous inferences that some 
j)rofess to deduce from it, ought not to be preached. 
There is probably not a fundamental doctrine contained 
in the Bible that some do not wrest to their injury; 
and the objection would lie with equal force against the 
whole body of gospel doctrine. 

18 



208 church-members' hand-book of theology. 



CHAPTEK XI. 



ATONEMENT. 



No system of theology that should leave the doctrine 
of atonement without special notice, would be consid- 
ered as complete; and, indeed, such a system would be 
radically defective. A great deal has been said and 
written professedly upon this important subject; but 
I hope I may be excused for saying that, according to 
my judgment, much of what has been written has been 
to little or no purpose. Not pretending to be able to 
instruct the theological icorld, it is my constant desire 
to be useful to the " poor of this world, rich in faith, 
and heirs of the kingdom." I believe the essential 
doctrines of the gospel — such as we have been discuss- 
ing in the preceding pages — have been pretty correctly 
understood by the true church in all ages, from the 
days of the apostles to the present time, and we have 
no reason to expect any new discoveries in the plan of 
salvation. There is room for the wisest to increase in 
the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ ; but, in the 
fundamental principles of the gospel, nothing new will 
be brought to light that is essential to the great system 
of gospel truth. All that is indispensably necessaiy is 
to have access to the word of God, and a heart prepared 
to receive the instruction. In the doctrine of the 
atonement I shall not aspire to the honor of new dis- 



ATONEMENT. 209 

covery ; but if I can offer a thought that will throw 
any additional light on any part of the subject into the 
mind of my reader, verily I shall have my desired re- 
ward. 

-If the word atonement was a, .scriptural term, and of 
frequent occurrence in the New Testament, like justi- 
fication and redemption, we might ascertain its script- 
ural meaning by consulting the connection in which 
it is used by inspired writers : but it is not so ; the 
word is used, I believe, but once in that book, and in 
that place all good scholars concur in saying the orig- 
inal word should not have been translated atonement, 
but reconciliation. The word is often nsed in the Old 
Testament, respecting the sacrifices offered under that 
dispensation, and in this light I suppose it may be said 
to be a scriptural term. From the use there made of 
the word in a typical sense, we may learn something 
of what should be its proper meaning in an evangeli- 
cal sense. But, at least, the word is properly a theolog- 
ical term, and, considered in this point of view, it has, 
or ought to have, a definite and universally accepted 
meaning. If the word is generally used by writers in 
a particular acceptation — and I believe it is — any 
writer who discusses the doctrine of atonement in a 
different sense, without at once apprising his readers, 
most probabl} T has an insidious design in view ; but if 
he reall}' differs from others as to what we are to un- 
derstand b} r the atonement of Christ, we have no right 
to require anj T thing more of him than a plain and un- 
ambiguous statement of the sense in which he intends 
to use the term, or of what he understands the atone- 
ment to be, and an honest avowal of the difference be- 
tween his views and the opinions of others. 

The range of my reading is comparatively very lim- 



210 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

ited, so that I have consulted very few works written 
expressly on atonement. What little knowledge I 
have acquired of the various theories which have been 
put forth by our learned writers, has been derived 
incidentally from a few authors who have had occasion' 
to refer to them. JSTot occupying that position in the 
literary world which would entitle me to claim equal- 
ity with our theological authors, I have felt timid in 
referring to them by name; but the high respect which 
I entertain for those great names must not deter me 
from exhibiting what I believe to be the truth of Clod 
as we have it in His word, although my views might 
not perfectly accord with theirs in every particular 
idea. I am not aware, however, that my views of 
atonement differ materially from those which have 
been generally maintained by our standard orthodox 
divines. 

With regard to the meaning of the word atonement, 
some are disposed to lay a good deal of stress on the 
etymology of the term— to wit, at-one-ment ; but it re- 
quires but little knowledge of the history of our lan- 
guage to see that etymology is a very uncertain 
method of ascertaining the proper meaning of words. 
The English scholar stands in no need of examples to 
illustrate this. Besides, it is not so much the literal 
meaning of the word with which we are concerned; it 
is that particular evangelical doctrine in theology 
which has been generally designated by the term 
atonement. This doctrine I propose to discuss, and I 
design to employ as definite and precise language as I 
am able. 

A late writer on atonement gives us the following 
definition: "It is the expiation of sin through the 
obedience and death of the Lord Jesus." I shall not 



ATONEMENT. 211 

object to this definition. The author intended no dis- 
guise or evasion. As he is still living, and is also iC a 
brother beloved," and one who, I doubt not, loves the 
truth, I presume he will not be offended if I offer a 
critical suggestion. If, by the word obedience, we are to 
understand both the perfect holy obedience of His life 
and also His " obedience unto death" — that is, His obe- 
dience in dying — the definition is, perhaps, as unex- 
ceptionable as can well be given ; but although the 
perfect holiness of the Eedeemer's life was essential to 
the validity of His sacrifice — it was essential to the 
merit and acceptableness of the "offering" which He 
made for our sins, and in this sense was essential to 
the atonement — yet I am not quite sure that it is an 
essential part of the atonement itself. The holiness of 
Christ was necessary to honor the law in the holiness 
of its nature and authority, but it was the justice of 
the law in relation to sin that required atonement. I 
believe it is held by our -standard writers generally, 
that the obligation to be perfectly conformed to the 
holiness of the law is intransferable, and so I under- 
stand it ; if so, substitution is inadmissible. The holi- 
ness of the law requires absolute holiness of every sub- 
ject of the law, and nothing else can satisfy the'demand. 
The obligation can not be discharged by a representa- 
tive. If these thoughts are correct, I can not so well 
see how the holiness of our Savior's life, though im- 
maculate, can constitute an essential part of an atone- 
ment for sin. It is -easy to see that perfect holiness in 
the Eedeemer's life and personal character was essen- 
tial to His being a competent and acceptable sin-offer- 
ing, and also that it was essential to His official rela- 
tions to us as sinners. And further: As the law held 
a rightful authority over us as human subjects, it was 



212 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

necessary that our accepted Surety should, in human 
nature, honor the holiness of the law by demonstrating 
that the obligation to perfect holiness was not a re- 
quirement beyond the constitutional ability of human 
subjects. It was necessary that the holy character of 
the law should be duly honored in human nature, as 
well as that the justice of the law should be fully vin- 
dicated or satisfied by inflicting the penalty for trans- 
gression upon one in human nature. 

I would not be too positive on this point, and I will 
thankfully accept the kindness of any one who will 
give me more light. I have not made these remarks 
as intending to instruct my superiors, nor as "a verbal 
criticism ; but believing there is here a real distinc- 
tion in these two aspects of the Divine law, I thought 
it might be well not to lose sight of it in a discourse 
on the atonement of Christ. 

Another modern writer on atonement says : " The 
essential idea in the doctrine of the atonement is that 
of substitution, or vicariousness" This postulate is ob- 
jectionable; for, although in the atonement of Christ 
substitution is an essential condition, yet it does not 
belong to the essence of the atonement itself. Substi- 
tution was an indispensable prerequisite; but in the 
order of nature, as well as in the order of operation 
(if I may so express it), the substitution preceded the 
atonement. Christ must first become our substitute — • 
Dur accepted substitute — before He could make atone- 
ment for us. Using the word atonement in its general 
meaning — not restricting it to the atonement of Christ 
— it is allowable to say there may be atonement where 
there is no substitution, and there may be substitu- 
tion where there is no atonement. There is so wide 
a distinction between the ordinary signification of the 



ATONEMENT. 213 

two words that neither can convey the essential idea 
of the other. 

The same writer says : "The atonement is something 
substituted in the place of the penalty of the law, 
which will answer the same ends as the punishment 
of the offender himself would." Passing, for the 
present, the very objectionable doctrines couched in 
this quotation, it is sufficient to say that if the atone- 
ment did not answer the end of satisfying the Divine 
law for our sins, it would be false to speak of it as 
atonement. But why adopt such a distant and point- 
less mode of statement? 

Again: "It is through Christ that reconciliation is 
effected between God and man;" and, 

"That in accomplishing this He suffered and died as 
a substitute in the place of sinners." Here our author 
ventures to come to the essential doctrine of the 
atonement — rather an unusual tiling for him to do. 
He speaks abundantly of substitution, of law, of suf- 
erings, and of punishment;" but seems to be fearfully 
cautious of speaking much about the death of Christ — 
the very thing that constitutes a real atonement. 
That in which I glory above all things, he seems to be 
studious to keep out of view. I suppose he kept this 
grand transaction constantly in his own eye while 
treating on atonement; but he appears to be reluctant 
to set it before the eyes of his readers. 

As I understand atonement to mean equitable satis- 
faction for injury, or adequate reparation, I under- 
stand the atonement, which is the subject of the pres- 
ent discussion, to be that satisfaction for sins which 
was made to the Divine law by the death of the Sou 
of God. I suppose this statement will give the reader 
a sufficient idea of what I mean by atonement, but I 



214 church-members' 

do not pretend that all the elements and essential 
characteristics of the atonement are included in this 
one sentence. To set the idea in a clear light, let us 
look at a few passages of Scripture which have a di- 
rect reference to atonement: "Christ died for our 
sins." "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, 
the just for the unjust." "Christ hath redeemed us 
from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." 
^'He hath redeemed us to ; God by His blood." " Eut 
God commandeth His love toward us, in that while 
we were yet sinners Christ died for us." "For if 
when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by 
the death of His Son." In these quotations we see 
what the atonement is. We might add many others 
to the same effect. Whatever men may think the 
atonement ought to be, these Scriptures show us 
plainly what it is. That God saves sinners through, 
the death of His Son, is the grandest and .most glori- 
ous manifestation of the all-fullness of the Divine per- 
fection of any that He has ever made to us. ~Nov is 
it in the power of the human mind to conceive of any 
possible way in which all the perfections of the infin- 
ite Godhead could be revealed to created minds to a 
greater or to an equal extent ; and how wonderful, 
how overwhelming the thought that such sinful 
wretches as we are should be graciously embraced in 
it ! This transaction is the foundation of the whole 
plan of man's salvation; and when we reflect what a 
stupendous weight of glory is dependent upon it, we 
can not ascribe too much importance to it. It is the 
good pleasure of God to lay the burden of more of the 
glory of His Name upon this one thing, than upon all 
else put together that He has ever done, of which we 
have any knowledge or can conceive. The sinner 



ATONEMENT. 215 

that builds on this foundation has nothing to fear; 
but a hope that rests upon any other ground must 
eventuate in disappointment and confusion. If there 
is any defect or insufficiency in the atonement, the 
whole scheme of man's salvation is a failure. Hence 
an essential error or mistake in this doctrine must 
vitiate all other doctrines of the gospel, for all others 
rest upon it. In what I write, I " consider what I 
say," and request the reader to do the same. 

As atonement has particular respect to Divine jus- 
tice, in canvassing the doctrine we should make the 
exact extent of its claims, and the plenary liquidation 
of those claims, a ruling principle throughout, for no 
partial reparation is atonement. The satisfaction 
made must be full, complete, and perfect in every re- 
spect, in which the interests and honor of Divine jus- 
tice are concerned. The justice of God in its relation 
to us is set forth in what We usually term the moral 
law, and this law has two fundamental elements: 
First, obligation to obedience; secondly, penalty for 
disobedience. The obligation is just — founded in pure 
justice. The penalty is also just, and emanates from 
eternal moral justice. "We have all transgressed, and 
have thus subjected ourselves to the administration of 
the penalty; and the same immutable law that pre- 
scribed the penalty must inflict it. The only way in 
which we, personal sinners, can satisfy the demands 
of penal justice, is to suffer the penalty in our own 
persons. If there was any way in which we could 
satisfy the claims of justice without suffering the pen- 
alty we might escape ; but there is none. It follows 
therefore that we can not make atonement for our 
sins. We never can make a finished satisfaction, so 
as to found a righteous claim to a discharge from the 
19 



216 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

penalty. I might enlarge upon this topic and show it 
out more fully, and, perhaps, I ought to do it ; but I 
will pass on to what I have now more immediately 
before me. 

In making atonement there are certain conditions 
which must be complied with; as, 

1. The satisfaction must be made to the injured 
party. 

If it is not, the necessity of atonement is not met. 

2. It must be made by, or in behalf of, the offending 
party. 

If it is not, it can not avail to his benefit. 

3. If made by a substitute, such substitute must be 
every way competent to the work. 

Otherwise the undertaking must fail. 

4. The atonement must be perfect and complete. 

Or it can not answer the ends for which an atone- 
ment was necessary. 

In relation to the above conditions, we will exam- 
ine the atonement of Christ. 

These propositions are so plain and so evident, that 
it would seem superfluous to spend time or labor in 
proving or illustrating them ; and yet I believe that 
every one of them has been expressly or virtually de- 
nied. But I can not take special notice of every artful 
evasion and critical perversion of gospel truth. I do 
not wish to become intensely controversial; but if a 
man will maintain the truth of Holy Scripture, it is 
not possible to avoid polemics. 

1. Atonement must be made to the injured party. Is it 
not intuitively evident that when reparation is made 
for injury, that it must be made to the party injured? 
None other had a right to require it, and none other 
had a right to accept it. If the sin for which atone- 



ATONEMENT. 217 

ment is made is sin against God, is it not manifest 
that the satisfaction, or atonement, must be made to 
Him? Candor can not be blind to this. 

The honor of the Divine government must be main- 
tained untarnished. This is a point insisted on largely 
by most writers on atonement, and it can not be de- 
fended too earnestly, nor be too thoroughly examined. 
But the honor of the Divine government can not be 
conserved without the equity of the government is 
maintained. The honor of God's government rests 
fundamentally upon this principle. The honor of the 
Divine government requires imperatively that the 
righteousness of laic — which is the medium or instru- 
ment of administration — should stand unimpeachable. 
We may say that the honor of the Divine government 
belongs rather to the order of policy, and in this re- 
spect might be optional; but the equity of God's gov- 
ernment is a necessity — a natural and Divine necessity — 
and can not be optional. For Him to create rational 
and intelligent creatures was an act of His sovereign 
will; He was perfectly at liberty to create us or not 
create us, according to the good pleasure of His own 
will; but to govern us and deal with us as His sub- 
jects, in a way of strict righteousness, is not an act 
merely of discretionary will, though of course His will 
is in it, but by the necessity of His essential nature. 
He must govern us according to the principles of im- 
mutable and eternal justice ; for it is evident beyond 
controversy, that if He is just in Himself. He must be 
just in His government. 

Inflexibility is essential to justice. To suppose that 
it could fall short of, or extend beyond its legitimate 
bounds, destroys the very idea of justice ; and that 
justice which relates to us and to our sins, is God's 



218 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

justice, and is as unchangeable as He is Himself, for 
it is au attribute of His essential nature. Hence an 
atonement made for our sins must be made to Him ; 
He must be the object of atonement. 

Every man who acknowledges the Divine authority 
of the Holy Scriptures, feels that He does not stand 
in that friendly relation to God that he would desire 
to do ; he is sensible that all is not right between him 
and his Maker; he is conscious that he has sinned 
against his rightful Sovereign, and that his God has 
good reason and just cause to be displeased with him. 
Now, if any thing is done by way of making atone- 
ment, or satisfaction, for his sins, so as to adjust the 
difference and remove the difficulty, whatever it may 
be — say the death of Christ — if he does not believe 
that God Himself is satisfied with it, that He approves 
and accepts this atonement as full satisfaction on His 
part, it will bring no relief; he will still be exercised 
with those uneasy apprehensions that God still holds 
his sins in remembrance. But if, on the other hand, 
he feels a perfect assurance that this atonement makes 
full satisfaction to God — that He is not only content, 
but well pleased with it — then the sinner finds a resting- 
place ; he feels that he has secured ground to stand 
upon. But these things could not be so if the atone- 
ment was not made to God. This is the ground upon 
which every true believer in Christ rests upon. He is 
conscious that God has a just demand against him, 
and that Christ has died for the express purpose of 
satisfying that demand. If that voice, that glorious 
announcement, twice delivered from heaven, has no 
reference to the atonement, it is among the least of 
nil the revelations that God has ever made to us ; but 
if it may be supposed to have any reference to the 



ATONEMENT. 219 

atonement, it is demonstrative proof that the atone- 
ment was made to Him. 

It is right, however, that we should notice the 
present topic more immediately in the light of the 
moral law; and this law naturally presents itself to 
us in two points of view : the holiness of the law, and 
the justice of the law. Our obligation to a perfect obe- 
dience is founded in the holiness of the law ; but the 
penalty for transgression is the expression of the justice 
of the law : and we must not forget that the authority 
of the Lawgiver is in both. It is the authority of the 
Sovereign God that requires the obedience, and the 
same Divine authority declares and enforces the pen- 
alty. 

The subject of the atonement, in that point of view 
in which w*e are now considering it, does not require 
us to say much with regard to the holiness of the law, 
because it makes but the one demand upon us — that is, 
absolute perfect holiness; and this it makes on every 
individual personal subject of the law. It does not 
ask, and can not accept, of any commutation, satis- 
faction, or mitigation. The requirement — the only re- 
quirement — is personal holiness ; and the obligation to 
render this is perpetual and unchangeable, and can 
not be relaxed.' And, as no atonement can satisfy 
this demand, it can admit of no substitution that will 
release us from obligation to be holy. 

But the case is different with respect to the claims 
of justice. The justice of the law requires satisfaction 
for the injury — that is. atonement. Crime deserves 
punishment ; and if crime is committed and passes 
unpunished, this is injustice. The justice of the law 
demands that transgression — that is, sin — shall be pun- 
ished. If sin is committed against the Divine law, 



220 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

and the just penalty of the law is not inflicted, it is 
clear that there is injustice somewhere. If the re- 
quirement of obedience to the law is a just require- 
ment, and if the penalty annexed by the law for trans- 
gression is a just penalty, then the administration of the 
law T is not just except the penalty is inflicted. It is 
G-od himself that is the Lawgiver ; He, and He only, 
enjoins the obedience ; He only declares the penalty 
for disobedience; He only is the administrator of the 
law, and the equity of the administration is the mani- 
festation of the justice of the Lawgiver. It therefore 
follows as a plain consequence, that if any atonement 
is made for our disobedience, it must be made to Him, 
that it may satisfy the demands of His justice and 
vindicate the equity of His administration. Our sins 
are sins against God, and the satisfaction must be 
made to Him. Hence it is said that Christ, in making 
atonement, " offered Himself without spot to God." 
Indeed, the point is made so plain by the general 
teachings of the Scriptures and the very nature of the 
case, that, without any great impropriety, I might 
have dispensed with any remarks upon this topic, and 
proceeded with the general subject just as though the 
doctrine had never been denied or doubted ; but, on 
account of its connection with other topics belonging 
to the subject, I thought I might not be quite justifia- 
ble in passing loosely over it without a more special 
notice; and, in the further discussion of the subject, 
a frequent recurrence to this point will be unavoida- 
ble. 

2. The atonement must be made by, or in behalf of, 
the offending party. 

If atonement is made by the offender himself, then 
there is no need that another should interpose in his 



ATONEMENT. 221 

behalf; and if the sinner could make the requisite 
satisfaction for his sins, it would supersede the neces- 
sity of any intervention on the part of Christ. But as 
those whom I desire to edify are looking for edifica- 
tion in that atonement which is made by the death of 
the Lord Jesus, I will not detain the reader by treating 
on atonement as made by the offending party. All that 
I should think necessary to be said would only be pre- 
paratory to atonement by substitution. 

If the law is transgressed, the penalty, as a matter 
of course, must ensue, and the condemnation must 
fall on the transgressor. If one man injures another, 
he is under obligation to make reparation. This is a plain 
principle in equity. And upon this j^rinciple, if a man 
does violence to the law of God, he is under obligation 
to make satisfaction for the violation committed. This 
obligation he is bound to fulfill according to the tenor 
and spirit of the law. 

As the reward of a perfect obedience to the Divine 
law is life, so the penalty for disobedience is death. 
That death which is the penalty of the law is some- 
thing more than the mere death of the body, as the 
Scriptures clearly prove. But how much is included 
in the penal death, or necessarily results from it, is not 
easily comprehended, and I shall not in this place at- 
tempt to specify its nature or define its extent. It is 
sufficient for our present inquiry to say that every sin- 
ner is under obligation, which he can not avoid, to 
suffer its infliction, as that is due from him to the au- 
thority of a violated law. Suppose, then, that this death 
is inflicted upon the personal transgressor: he* has no 
power to restore himself again to life, and consequently 
he must remain forever in a state of death ; for he is 
a sinner still, and his sin still remains upon himself. 



222 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

The law has no power to deliver him from death ; and 
he has no power to deliver himself, and so must continue 
forever the subject of a violated law. Moreover, he still 
possesses all the powers of his moral and intellectual con- 
stitution, with all their functions, activities, and capabili- 
ties, and is therefore still under obligation to render a 
perfect obedience to all that the law requires. But 
his moral nature is depraved. He is alienated from his 
God, and averse to the holiness of the law, so that he 
continues to be the enemy of God, and remains an act- 
ual sinner. In this condition it is morally impossible 
that he can ever render that perfect obedience to the 
holy requirement of the law which is due to it. And 
the penalty of the law still lying upon him, it is impos- 
sible that he can ever remove that penalty. He may 
endure the penalty by abiding still in a state of death. 
But what the sinner needs, is that the penalty should 
be removed from him, that he may not suffer it. Bound 
under the iron fetters of inflexible justice, he can not 
do any thing, less or more, towards making satisfaction 
to the injured authority of the law. But nothing short 
of a full and complete satisfaction — & finished satisfac- 
tion for his sin — can ever constitute an atonement. 

Hence we must look to a substitute for atonement — 
to one who will make the required satisfaction for us, 
in our room, in our behalf— to one who will assume 
our liabilities, and take our place under the law, and 
endure the penalty in our stead. This is what is called 
vicarious suffering. The substitute must suffer that 
death which we would have to suffer, if the substitute 
were not to suffer it for us. 

The doctrine of substitution has been carried by 
some beyond its legitimate bounds. At least, so far as 
it is an essential element in the atonement of Christ, 



ATONEMENT. 223 

they have assigned to it a place where it can have no 
real application. Perhaps we ma}' notice this hereaf- 
ter. Others have denied the whole doctrine of atone- 
ment ; but these require no notice, further than what 
the general discussion will supply. There are others, 
again, who profess to hold the doctrine of substitution, 
but explain it in such a way as virtually excludes it 
from the work of atonement. 

The fact that the atonement made by the death of 
Christ was made for and in behalf of sinners, is so ex- 
plicitly testified in the Scriptures as to foreclose all 
reasoning to the contrary. We will select a few texts 
in proof: u Christ died for us." For — that is, in the 
place of. " Christ hath once suffered for sins, the just 
for the unjust." This is too plain to need comment. 
" I lay down my life for the sheep." " Who His own 
self bare our sins in His own body on the tree." 
We might add to these a great many others, but I 
shall take it for granted that these are sufficient. 

Of the Justice of Vicarious Sufferings. 

The question, How can it be just for the innocent to 
suffer for the guilty? is an inquiry which will naturally 
arise in the mind of man}' who are seeking to attain 
to clear views of the doctrine of atonement; and this 
is the place, in the order of discussion, for its consid- 
eration. As I do not pretend to be able to give my 
reader a satisfactory solution of this pi^oblem, I would 
prefer to pass it, for the present, without comment, and 
treat of it in a separate article at the close ; but as I 
can not make a reasonable excuse for such a detach- 
ment, I will proceed now to give my reader the result 
of some of my reflections on this profound ethical 



224 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

question. I must invoke the reader's patience, as I 
may dwell on this topic a little longer than he would 
expect. I shall endeavor to be as brief and concise as 
the nature of the inquiry will permit ; but if I were 
preparing a separate work on atonement. I should 
probably treat this question considerably mure at 
length than I design to do here. And I suppose it may 
be possible that some of my thoughts may not have 
occurred to the mind of every reader ; and it would 
give me pleasure to cast one ray of light on this sub- 
ject into the mind of the reader, as I rejoice in every 
accession that any Christian can make to his knowl- 
edge of Christ. I do not claim the ability to solve the 
question, or to explain the mystery, but I will simply 
present some of my own thoughts on the subject, leav- 
ing their confirmation, or their refutation, to such as 
are farther advanced in the knowledge of this branch 
of gospel doctrine than I am. 

But before I enter directly upon the main question, 
I wish to impress a few things on the mind of the 
reader, because they are impressed on my own mind. 

1. If there is mystery which we can not understand 
in a doctrine, or if we can not see its consistency 
with another doctrine known to be true, we are not, 
therefore, at liberty to reject it, because all the diffi- 
culty may be referred to our own limited powers of 
comprehension. 

2. In reasoning upon any one perfection of the 
Divine nature, we are not to make ourselves abso- 
lutely certain that our deductions are necessarily cor- 
rect. In order to do this, it would be necessary to 
understand all that is contained in that perfection, 
which, with us, is impossible. And more than this: 
All the perfections of the Godhead are mutually and 



ATONEMENT. 225 

intimately related to each other, and hence it might 
possibly be necessary that we should understand all 
these relations before we would be justifiable in pro- 
nouncing our conclusion indubitably correct, except 
where we have sufficient evidence from other sources 
to sustain them. 

3. If we find a doctrine plainly taught in the Script- 
ures which appears to us to be inconsistent with 
any one of the Divine attributes, we must yield to 
the Scriptures, and not be guided by our deductions 
from abstract truth, which may be, and frequently 
are, fallacious. The testimony of God's word must, 
in all cases, be accepted as paramount and decisive. 

4. The union of the Divine and human natures in 
the person of Jesus Christ is such an inconceivable 
mystery to us that we are not competent to affirm 
or deny respecting the moral nature and the moral 
relations of a constitution which so far exceed all our 
powers of comprehension, and especially one to which 
in its most vital point there is no analogy. 

5. The essential characteristics of eternal justice, so 
far as justice governs the relations of men, both to 
God and to each other, are sufficiently made known 
to us as the subjects of administrative justice; but 
there maybe a great deal included in Divine justice 
which it is not possible or needful for us, in our 
present condition, to understand; and in the great 
transaction now under consideration, the Son of God 
is not constitutionally a subject of administrative jus- 
tice. He assumed this state of subjection, and He is 
the only being in existence who could be injuriously 
affected by the substitution, whether just or unjust. 

6. We, as the subjects of law and administrative 
justice, are accountable beings to superior authority,* 



226 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

but the Son of God is supreme, and accountable to 
no other authority, for there is none above Him to 
whom He can be responsible. All the obligation that 
He can possibly be under, is that obligation which He 
is under to His own Godhead; and therefore He has a 
sovereign right to do and submit to all that is accord- 
ing to His own sovereign will. And we may ration- 
ally suppose that the principles of justice, in their ap- 
plication to subordinate and accountable creatures, 
may not be applicable, in every respect to a supreme 
and independent being. 

7. It may be said, that if that is just in the Divine 
administration which is inconsistent with and even 
contrary to all our ideas of human justice, how can we 
arrive at any true knowledge of the Divine character? 
To this we may reply, that other attributes of the 
Divine nature are equally inconsistent with our no- 
tions of those attributes, and consequently are equally 
liable to the same objection. For example : Our world 
is full of misery, distress, and almost every variety and 
degree of suffering. How can this be consistent with 
the infinite mercy of God, when it is, and ever has been, 
within the power of God to prevent it? We are, 
therefore, authorized to say, that we may know the 
true character of God, but we can not know His whole 
character. True, there is mystery : but if there was 
no mystery, we could not know the true character of 
God ; for mystery to finite creatures is necessarily in- 
separable from an infinite nature. We know from the 
word of God that He is ju St, and that Christ suffered, 
without any sin of His own, the just for the unjust. 
This should be received in implicit faith. And it is not 
wisdom, but presumption, to inquire into the mysteries 
of the Godhead further than fie has seen good to re- 



ATONEMENT. 227 

veal them. And perhaps it may not be impertinent to 
remark, that if this mystery in the justice of God had 
been clearly revealed to our understanding, for aught 
that we know it might have disclosed another mys- 
tery beyond that equally as much above our compre- 
hension, and perhaps still more repugnant to our 
pride. " Be still, and know that I am God." 

Can it be just that the innocent should suffer that 
the guilty may escape? This is in substance the form 
in which the question meets us ; and the answer is 
supposed to be intuitive — that it is not just; hence 
it is presented as a formidable objection to the atone- 
ment made by the vicarious death of Christ. But this 
form of stating the question is not fair ; it embraces 
two distinct questions. I must therefore protest against 
this complication. In discussing a subject — such a one 
as the subject now in hand — the prime point of inquiry 
ought to be disencumbered of every thing that does 
not essentially belong to it. That the question in the 
above form contains two distinct questions, is evident : 
1. Can it be just that the innocent should suffer? 2. 
Can it be just that the guilty should go unpunished? 
If we would attempt a logical investigation of our 
subject, these questions should be treated separately, 
and should by no means be blended into one. If it 
should be admitted that it may be just that the inno- 
cent should suffer under the administration of law, 
the whole question is disposed of at once. For what 
purpose the sufferings are inflicted, or on whose ac- 
count they are endured, or what particular benefit 
may thereby accrue to others, have nothing to do with 
the justice or the injustice of the principle; and though 
it may be a moment's digression, I must remark that 
I never hear any complaint of injustice because the 



228 church-members' hand book of theology. 

guilty is allowed to escape the just punishment due to 
his sin. And yet the integrity and the honor of Di- 
vine justice is as much involved in the one transaction 
as in the other. There is as much difficulty and as 
much mystery in the one question as in the other, and 
we are as much bound to answer the one as the other. 
The objector, by imputing injustice to substitutional 
suffering, necessarily incurs the burden of defending 
the remission of penalty from the imputation of in- 
justice; and in this he never can succeed while he 
adheres to his objection. By answering the latter 
question, the objector will furnish the materials of an 
answer to the former; and if they were required to 
withhold their objection till they had complied with 
their own obligation, it is probable we should 
never hear of such schemes of atonement as some 
that have been ushered into the world. They may 
appeal to the mercy of God ; but let it be remembered 
that there is no mercy in the treasures of Divine grace 
that can be exercised at the expense of Divine justice. 
Such an appeal would have no relevancy, and would 
leave the question of justice untouched. 

I will now repeat, that in considering the question 
of the injustice of substitutional suffering, the fact 
that the guilty are exempted does not affect the mer- 
its of the question. If our object is to arrive at the 
truth as nearly as we can, we must bring the subject 
of inquiry as nearly as possible to a single point; 
and the question wili be, Can it be just that the inno- 
cent should suffer under the administration of law? 
The question reduced to this simple form might seem 
to divest the object of inquiry of any complications 
that would embarrass our investigation, but in reality 
it does not. That specific object which we now have 



ATONEMENT. 229 

in view subjects the question to still further limita- 
tions, unless we will consent to hamper ourselves for- 
ever with entanglements that have no necessary con- 
nection with the precise object of inquiry. 

The question, so far as we have any concern with 
it, is properly a theological question, and the solution 
does not strictly belong to the principles of mere eth- 
ical science. It is therefore our privilege to leave the 
realm of metaphysics, and discuss the doctrine exclu- 
sively in the light of theology. We should have noth- 
ing to do with it in any other point of view than as it 
relates to the vicarious death of the Son of God. 
This death is an isolated event in the Divine adminis- 
tration. The whole history of the Divine government, 
so far as men can have any knowledge of it, furnishes 
no similar event. The case is absolutely unique; and 
if we will contemplate with any reasonable attention 
the elements of this transaction we shall not fail to 
see that it is not possible that there should be any 
analogy. We therefore do injustice to the subject if 
we consent to canvass it in any other way than as it 
respects that one event. We must take this one iso- 
lated fact as it is, and confine our discussion of the 
question to the bearing it has on that one specific case. 
There is no need to deal in abstractions. 

If the question is propounded, whether a law in a 
human government requiring the infliction of a, pre- 
scribed penalty for crime on an innocent subject in- 
stead of the one that was guilty, I should have no 
objection to an answer in the negative ; for even if the 
suffering substitute endured the penalty voluntarily, 
I should think a just law would not admit of such sub- 
stitution, nor allow the penalty to be inflicted. But 
there would be no analogy between such a case and 



230 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

the vicarious sufferings of Christ; for, in the first 
place, the substitute, though voluntary, has no rigid 
to dispose of himself in that way. He would do an 
act which would he wrong in its own nature. He 
would virtually take the administration of the law in 
his own hands, which he has no right to do. God has 
invested no man with a right to sacrifice his own life 
in* order to save the life of a criminal; the act would 
be suicide. Again : If the substitute dies, he can do 
no more for himself, or for his government, or for any 
one else. He can not rise from the dead. All that he 
accomplishes by his death is the release of a guilty 
criminal from merited condemnation. And again : 
Men are equals, and all stand in the same relation to 
the law; neither the substitute nor the criminal stand 
in any other or higher relation to the law than that 
of subjects. But in the matter of the substitutional 
death of Christ, the conditioms arc very different. The 
want of parallelism is so great that we can not reason 
logically from one to the other. And yet some persons 
seem to take no notice of this want of analogy and 
use the figure as if the cases were in all respects sim- 
ilar. I can not think they do justice to the subject. 
All the advantage we can derive from analogy is 
merely partial and incidental. If we seek for light 
on the substitutional atonement of Christ, we must ex- 
amine it on its own merits, and confine ourselves to 
such principles and conditions as the case itself will 
supply, adhering to the guidance of Divine revelation. 
The plausibility of the objection, in a mere ethical 
point of view, should not intimidate us in the least; 
because we are not dealing with an abstract principle, 
but canvassing a specific case brought out in a given 
fact — a fact involving great and important considera- 



ATONEMENT. 231 

tions, which may verify that the abstract principle 
has no just application to the case. 

We should keep in view, also, that individual per- 
sonal rights are limited by the rights of others, and 
this is the only limitation. It is the privilege of ev- 
ery man to exercise his rights — those rights with 
which the Creator has endowed him — to whatever ex- 
tent he pleases, provided he does not invade the rights 
of others. If a man performs an act by which the 
rights of no other being are infringed — if there is in- 
justice in the deed, the injustice must be confined to 
himself; that is, he only is affected or injured by it. 
But the Creator has given no man the right to injure 
himself. Man is God's property, and if a man mur- 
ders himself, or is designedly accessory to his own 
death, or willfully does himself a personal injury, he 
infringes the paramount rights of the Creator. 

It must also be admitted that it is a moral impossi- 
bility that God should do any thing that is not in strict 
accordance with His nature; for as is His nature, so of 
necessity is His will; and He can not put forth His 
power only as He wills to do it. 

We say that the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was 
innocent, suffered the penalty of the law as a substi- 
tute in the place of sinners. The objector ascribes 
injustice to this transaction. Now, I must maintain 
that he is bound to show wherein this injustice con- 
sists. It is not pretended that any injustice is done to 
God as Lawgiver and Judge; neither is there injus- 
tice done to those for whom He suffered as a substi- 
tute, for they are immensely benefited by it. It is 
evident that if injustice is done to any person, it must 
be done to the suffering party; and if there is any 
force in the objection, or if it has any just application 
20 



232 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

to the ease, it must apply to Christ, and to Him only. 
Then the question before us is simply this : 

Was Christ, in dying as a substitute for sinners, the 
victim of injustice ? 

I propose now to submit to the candid reader the 
result of some of my reflections on this subject, not 
pretending to give a complete and satisfactory answer 
to the question, and thus remove it out of the field of 
controversy. In presenting my thoughts on this sub- 
ject to your consideration, I must be permitted to di- 
rect your attention to the original purpose and to the 
ultimate end of that economy of which this great trans- 
action was an important and an essential part. I can 
not do justice to the view which I take of the subject 
without this ; and I think also they shed their light on 
the whole field of inquiry. If we leave out these con- 
siderations, I can not see how we can ever attain to 
a clear view of the general subject, and especially of 
the particular topic of the present discussion. For 
the sake of brevity, I must consent to forego my 
wishes in two respects : On some of the particular 
topics I would gladly extend my remarks farther than 
I design to do; and also I would like to refer to certain 
scriptures, which I think would sustain the views of- 
fered to your reflection. 

God is what He is by the necessity of His own na- 
ture ; and being infinitely perfect in His essential 
nature, whatever He designs or purposes must be per- 
fect, for nothing that is imperfect can originate in or 
emanate from His infinite perfection. And, as all His 
purposes originate in Himself, so they all terminate in 
Him. As He is the first cause, so He is the last end 
of all that He purposes and of all that He does. If, 
then, we inquire what is the ultimate end of all that 



ATONEMENT. 233 

He purposes and performs, the answer is. the manifes- 
tation of His own glory : or. (to express the idea in 
different forms, it is to make known what He is — to 
reveal His own nature. This manifestation of Himself, 
considered in its relation to us. is made that we may 
know Him. that we may know what He is. that we 
may know His true character. 

God. in His word, has revealed Himself to us as One 
God. subsisting in three Persons — the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Spirit. The three are the same, co-es- 
sential, co-eternal, co-equal Godhead. In this triune 
God there is one will, one purpose, one way. and one 
end in all things, to the glory of the One God. This 
trinity of persons in the Godhead is an incomprehen- 
sible mystery to us. bnt God has revealed to us the 
fact that it is so: and He has further revealed to us 
that, in accomplishing this great end — to wit. the 
manifestation of His glorious character — He would do 
ail things by and through the Son of God, who is 
Christ the Lord. "All things were made by Him. and 
without Him was not any thing made that was made." 
" For by Him were all things created that are in the 
heavens and in the earth, visible and invisible : whether 
they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or 
powers : all things were created by Him and for Him. 
and He is before all things, and by Him ail things 
consist.'' The ground that we should take here is. 
that God lias a sovereign and Divine right to make 
known to His intelligent creatures the excellency and 
infinite fullness of His nature : also, that He has the 
Bame Divine and supreme right to make this manifes- 
tation of Kin. -elf by and through Hi- co-equal Son. 
who is one with the Father : and further, that the 
Son of God. as one with the Father, possesses in Him- 



234 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

self, by virtue of His own supreme Divinity, the same 
right to make this manifestation according to the sov- 
ereign will of the eternal Godhead. Moreover, God 
had a Divine and eternal right to make this manifesta- 
tion of Himself in whatever way it might be consistent 
with His sovereign will. We say further, that there is 
but one nature, but one will, and but the one purpose in 
the Godhead. And if the Son of Gocl, as the great 
Actor in accomplishing the Divine purpose, either on 
the ground of necessity or propriety, chose to unite 
His Divine nature with the nature and form of any of 
His creatures. He had a sovereign and Divine right to do 
so ; for He has a right to enter into whatever relations to 
His creatures He pleases ; and He creates all things, and 
upholds all things, and works all things according to the 
counsel of His own will. All things, therefore, must 
be subordinated to Him and under His sovereign 
control, or He would not be in a condition to fulfill the 
great office of a perfect Bevealer of the Divine perfec- 
tion. And all that is comprehended and intervenes 
between the original pmr pose and the final consummation 
of the great design, must be subjected to Him. in order 
to enable Him to make that manifestation of the Di- 
vine character which is the ultimate end in view. 
Hence all that He has made in creation, and all that 
He does in His providence, or in the operations of 
nature, are only a system of means by which He is to 
make known to intelligent creatures the infinite per- 
fection of the Godhead ; and He has a sovereign right 
to employ them for that end, according to His own 
good pleasure. 

And as He, the Supreme, had in Himself an inher- 
ent and sovereign right to dispose of and use all 
those means which He had created and ordained for 



ATONEMENT. 235 

.that designated purpose, according to His will, in the 
prosecution of the appointed end, so He had a right to 
dispose of Himself in any way that might be necessary 
in subserviency to this determinate end. And being 
Himself the Supreme, He could be under obligation to 
no being but Himself; and this obligation to Himself — 
or to the Godhead, which is the same — in relation to 
this ultimate end, bound Him (so to speak) to manifest 
the all-fullness of the incomprehensible and invisible 
God to His intelligent creatures ; and in order that the 
all-fullness of the Divine nature might be seen in Him, 
it was necessary that all the fullness of the Godhead 
should dwell in Him personally. I suppose the repre- 
sentations here made will not be contested; and if, in 
the exercise of those rights and perfections, the rights 
of no other being are infringed, and He does no in- 
justice to Himself, it seems to me that the impeach- 
ment of injustice must fall to the ground. We will 
therefore proceed to inquire further. 

The Son of God, in whom resided all the fullness of 
the Godhead, manifested the glory of His power when 
He created or brought into existence the original 
matter of this earth and of the whole universal ma- 
terial creation. In this work there was a most con- 
spicuous and demonstrative exhibition of Divine power. 
When He proceeded further to organize and diversify 
this material substance into its present forms, varieties, 
adaptations, and uses, and thus prepare it to be the 
habitation of His intelligent creatures of the human 
race, we see a wonderful manifestation, not only of 
His power, but also of His wisdom and His goodness. 
Again, when He declared His holy law, which he had 
ordained for the observance and for the good of His 
intelligent creatures, He then manifested the holy na- 



236 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

ture of the Divine Lawgiver; and by annexing a 
righteous penalty for transgression, and promising life 
on condition of a perfect obedience, He made known 
to us that He is a God of perfect justice. 

"We are authorized by the Holy Scriptures to be- 
lieve that a part of His intelligent creatures of the 
angelic order did actually violate His law, and thus 
subject themselves to its dreadful penalty, and in 
consequence are doomed to irrecoverable ruin, and 
must suffer under the administration of punitive jus- 
tice without redemption, in order that the Divine jus- 
tice may be manifested to the glory of God. Thus we 
see that the Son of God is making greater and 
greater manifestations of the glory of the Divine 
character. 

In the case of the apostate angels we see an exhibi- 
tion of that inflexible justice that knows no mercy, and 
can not relax, or mitigate, or dispense with the least 
tittle of its demands ; for if it could it would not be per- 
fect justice. The honor of Divine justice must be 
maintained if its vindication should involve the whole 
creation in ruins. And when we consider the superior 
excellency of this high order of intelligent creatures, 
and that no merciful provision is made for their deliv- 
erance from the unrelenting hand of offended justice, 
nor any alleviation of their desperate and wretched 
condition, w T e may assure ourselves that if creatures of 
an inferior order should follow their example of diso- 
bedience, that Divine justice will require a satisfactory 
vindication equally ample, and every way commensu- 
rate wdth its injured honor. 

We will now suppose (which is a solemn fact) that 
the human race should cast off their original character 
of holiness — should refuse obedience to God — trans- 



ATONEMENT. 237 

gress His holy law, and, of course, incur the penalty, 
which is death. We have just now had an example of 
the imperative requirements of Divine justice in the 
case of the rebellious angels; and justice is the same, 
whether it respects angels or men. Thus guilty man 
falls into the hands of violated justice, which can not 
be defied and trampled upon with impunity; for if it 
might, the Sou of God, whose office it is to administer 
the Divine government, would fail to manifest the 
glory of His justice. And, unless the honor of justice 
is vindicated, man must forever abide under the wrath 
of God, that the rights of justice may be maintained. 
But let us now lay down another supposition — one 
which is equally true with the former. Suppose, then, 
that it is a part of the great purpose of God, in making 
known the glory of His Name, that He will make a new 
and additional display of all the perfections of His 
Divine nature beyond any thing that has ever pre- 
ceded it; and in doing this, that He will show that 
His wisdom is sufficient to make a way whereby the 
rights of justice shall remain inviolate, while He will 
extend redeeming mercy to the transgressors of His 
law. This work belongs to the Son of God, not only 
by appointment, but of necessity; for it is by Him 
that all the purposes of God are executed. And I 
must be allowed to believe that there was no other 
being in existence, created or uncreated, that was 
competent to the work ; none other who possessed 
those inherent constitutional qualifications which were 
essential to the great achievement. He, being a 
Divine person, is independent of all other beings. 
He has a sovereign right to do His own will. He is 
accountable to none. He is under no obligation to 
any other being than Himself. He possesses a Divine 



238 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

right to dispose of and use all things that He has 
created according to His own good pleasure- — subject 
only to that obligation which He owes to Himself to 
maintain inviolate all His perfections. He, therefore, 
had an independent and Divine right to assume 
human nature, and thus unite the Divine and human 
natures in His one person. This right I suppose no 
one will question ; and in the exercise of this right 
He did make Himself one with man, born of a 
woman, and made under the law, that He might re- 
deem them that were under the law. Let us spend 
a moment in considering the import of this text. He 
was not made one with man in such a sense as to be 
a partaker of the sinfulness of man's fallen nature; 
but in such a way as that, by uniting both natures 
in His one person, He was God and was man. But 
His Divinity was not made humanity, nor His human- 
ity made Divinity; but both natures, in all their full- 
ness, and in all their respective perfections, were 
united in His one person. The object in view was 
that He might redeem them that were under the law. 
To do this it was necessary that He should Himself 
be made under the law; and that He might be made 
under the law it was necessary that He should be 
made (born) of a woman ; and thus deriving His 
human nature immediately from a descendant of 
Adam, He partook of the original constituted nature 
of man. And it should not be entirely overlooked 
that this uniting of the two natures is, in various 
places, ascribed to Christ himself, as being His own 
work. All this He had a supreme right to do; and 
in doing it He did not in the least impair any of 
His own rights, or trespass on the rights of any 
other being. It is, therefore, not possible that there 



ATONEMENT. 239 

could be auy injustice in these transactions. But, to 
save the time, I forbear to show how both God and 
man are abundantly glorified in it. 

The language employed in this text by the Holy 
Spirit — He was " made under the law " — clearly im- 
plies that previously He was not under the law in 
the same sense that He was made under it. The ob- 
ject to be accomplished w T as a declarative manifesta- 
tion that the glory of God's grace could be revealed 
in the redemption of the guilty, while the honor of 
His justice should sustain no disparagement. As we 
have said before, the Son of God was under obliga- 
tion to Himself — to the Godhead — to manifest, or 
make known, the glorious perfections of the Divine 
nature. And, as part of this work was to demonstrate 
that God is " a just God and a Savior " — a Savior of 
sinners — He was under the same obligation to do and 
to suffer all that was required to fulfill this condition. 
The Captain of our salvation must be made perfect 
through sufferings, and the Scripture gives reasons 
for this; consequently He must be made in the like- 
ness of sinful flesh. This condescension appears to 
have been an indispensable condition ; and the point 
of inquiry is, Did the Divine nature suffer any injus- 
tice in this part of His work ? I shall not make it a 
question now whether the Divinity of the Son of God 
endured any pain in making atonement; but for the 
present I will take it for granted that it did not; and 
leaving that question to be decided as it may, I will 
only remark here that if any can bring proof that the 
Divinity of Christ suffered, I think I can bring 
equally as good proof that there was no injustice in 
His suffering. And this is all that the present inquiry 
demands. The only respect in which injustice can be 
21 



240 CHURCH members' hand-book of theology. 

chargeable on the ground of His condescension, is that 
it seems to require that the infinitely glorious Majesty 
of heaven and earth should be obliged to stoop from 
His high pre-eminence to the low degree of uniting 
Himself with human nature that He might suffer death. 
If there is any injustice in this arrangement, it respects 
His Divine dignity only. But we are very incompetent 
judges of what the Divine dignity requires ; and that 
which is glory in God's esteem men would account 
shame ; and, in fact, the humiliation of Christ was an 
illustrious manifestation of Divine grace : " That He 
might show in the ages to come the exceeding riches 
of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ 
Jesus." In His humiliation He made a more glorious 
demonstration of the excellency of His gracious charac- 
ter than could have been possible if He had never 
" made Himself of no reputation, and taken upon Him 
the form of a servant, and become obedient unto death, 
even the death of the cross." And all this He did 
Himself. He voluntarily took the burden on Himself. 
He willingly bore it Himself, and He receives the 
reward in that He has glorified Himself. And now, 
who can point out the injustice that is done to the Son 
of God ? 

We must now inquire whether there was any in- 
justice done to the humanity of the Son of God by 
His enduring the sufferings necessary to make atone- 
ment for sin. Perhaps the whole question hinges upon 
this point; but it must be remembered that I have not 
promised to solve this mystery. All I profess to do is 
to submit some of my own thoughts on the subject to 
your reflection. If I could show that the claims of 
Divine justice against the sinner were fully canceled 
by the atonement, and that no injustice was suffered by 



ATONEMENT. 241 

Him who made it, this would vindicate the transaction 
from the imputation of injustice. The first of these 
positions, I suppose, will be admitted; for if the claims 
of justice in this respect are not satisfied, there is no 
atonement — whatever else was done, there is no atone- 
ment. 

I submit that the penalty of the law is death; and 
that the death of Jesus Christ, as a surety and substitute 
for sinners, is a full and sufficient satisfaction to the 
penal demands of the law. But could the human na- 
ture of the Lord Jesus receive the inflicted penalty 
without being the victim of injustice? I shall freely 
confess, that if the suffering was inflicted against the 
will of the suffering party, I can not see the justice of 
such a transfer of the penalty. And perhaps it would 
not be safe to affirm that the mere consent of the sub- 
stitute, irrespective of other considerations, would make 
it just. On the other hand, it might be going too far to 
affirm, that with the free consent of the substitute, there 
would be any injustice done to him. And I doubt 
whether any man can show that the willingness and 
voluntary assumption of the suffering party, wholly free 
from any external force or influence, does not effectually 
repel the imputation of injustice. But in my present at- 
tempt I have no need to avail myself of any advantage 
that I might derive from this argument. 

As there is a great difference between the guilty and 
the innocent, in respect to character and condition, so we 
think there must be a difference in the application of 
the principles of administrative justice in the two cases — 
a difference arising from, and corresponding with, the 
difference of character and condition. The execution 
of the penalty of the law on the guilty transgressor is 
punishment for crime; but on the innocent substitute, 



242 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

though it is suffering, it is not strictly punishment. So 
it is correct to say, that the innocent suffered for the 
guilty; but, in strictness, it is hardly correct to say 
that the innocent was punished for the guilty; and al- 
though the penalty of the law is the same in its applica- 
tion in both cases, yet the princij)le of administrative 
justice may, perhaps, be different according to the dif- 
ferent relations in which the two cases stand to the de- 
mands of strict justice. 

If the sinner suffers the penalty of the law in his own 
person, when the death penalty is inflicted, there is no 
hope beyond death. He must lie under the terrors 
and despair of death forever. There is no possibility of 
regaining life; and there can be no deliverance, be- 
cause there is no way of deliverance. And, further, he 
has no reward ; he receives no compensation for his suf- 
ferings. But this is far — very far from being the case 
with regard to the infliction of the penalty of the law on 
the human nature of Jesus Christ. He had the fullest 
assurance, that if He should pass through the ordeal of 
death without sin, that He would rise again— rise to an 
eternal life, over which death could have no power. He 
laid down His life that He might take it again. So the 
Psalmist, speaking in the person of Christ : " Thou wilt 
not leave ray soul in hell, nor suffer Thy Holy One to 
see corruption. Thou wilt show me the path of life." 
"I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take 
it again." " He shall swallow up death in victory." If 
He chose, (not merely submitted, or consented, but freely 
chose,) by suffering death, to exchange a natural and 
mortal life for a life that is spiritual and immortal, and 
beyond the power of death, it is not easy to see any in- 
consistency with the principles of justice in the trans- 
action, inasmuch as He was an immense gainer by it. 



ATONEMENT. 243 

The sufferings of death, however great, were soon termi- 
nated; but the glory and joys of His new life endure for- 
ever and ever. Perhaps (and I think it probable) He 
could realize in his own ease what the apostle says of 
Christians : " These light afflictions, which are but for a 
moment, work for us a far more exceeding and eternal 
weight of glory." 1 presume that no man can show 
that his new life is not much more than a full compen- 
sation for undergoing death. But this is not all that 1 
have to say on this principle. 

As it was the office and great prerogative of the Son 
of God, as such, to manifest the supreme excellency 
and infinite perfection of the Divine nature, so the 
fulfillment and consummation of this purpose was the 
great object that He had in view in every thing that 
He did; and with a view to the accomplishment of 
this great end, He created all things as a means to be 
employed by Him in the execution of this grand de- 
sign. And He so constituted them that they should 
be adapted to this purpose ; and especially man was 
created for this end, and constitutionally endowed 
with a capacity and fitne v ss for the purpose, according 
to the peculiar place which he was to fill in the great 
plan of manifestation. For this purpose man was 
created in the image of God ; he was endowed with 
all the moral perfections of his Creator, so far as it 
was possible for human nature to be. And now we 
will look at him in this character of moral perfection ; 
and as we suppose the human nature of Jesus Christ 
was in all respects the very same as that of Adam in 
his original creation, and therefore might, with the 
utmost propriety, be called the " second Adam" we 
will consider the moral perfections of Christ as a man. 
He was holy in all His moral nature ; we are the sub- 



244 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

jects of moral depravity and corruption. There is not 
an attribute of our moral nature that is not debased, 
contaminated, and averse from God. As we have at- 
tempted to show in a preceding part of this work, our 
moral nature is totally corrupted by sin ; but this was 
not so in respect to the human nature of the Son of 
God. God's will was His will. The will of the 
Divine nature of the Son of God and the will of 
the human nature were the same. Whatever was 
pleasing to the Divine nature was pleasing to the 
human nature; whatever was the delight of the Son 
of God to do, or submit to, was also the delight 
of the Man Christ Jesus to do ; also, whatever was 
the unvarying purpose of His Divine will was also 
the unvarying purpose and intent of His human 
will. And as it was the determinate purpose of the 
Son to manifest the glory of the Divine character in 
every way and by every means possible, so it was the 
constant aim and purpose and the paramount desire 
of His human nature to do the same thing. In respect 
to both His natures He could -say, "I delight to do 
Thy will, O my God." The will and purposes and 
the actings of the human nature were in perfect unison 
with the will and purposes and the doings of the Di- 
vine nature; and as the ultimate end of all was that 
God should be glorified, if the Divine Son, in doing 
this, in the exercise of His sovereign right as such, 
without any injustice to Himself or to any other be- 
ing, chose to become poor, and to humble Himself by 
assuming human nature, that in that nature He might 
suffer death, so we may conceive that the human na- 
ture, in the exercise of His right, and actuated by- the 
same will and desire with the Divine nature, might 
voluntarily, and without any injustice to Himself or 



ATONEMENT. 245 

to any other being, choose to submit to suffering and 
death, that He might thereby glorify God, and thus 
answer the great end for which human nature was 
originally created ; for man, as such, has rights peculiar 
to his nature and relations, which it is his privilege 
to exercise according to his own good pleasure ; and 
with those rights none have a right to interfere but 
his Creator, who invested him with those rights ; and 
if they are exercised in obedience to the will of God, 
there can be no interference. No man has a right to 
deprive another of his life, provided he has not for- 
feited his life according to the law of God. And we 
admit that God has not given to man a right to divest 
himself of life ; but God has a sovereign right to take 
from every man that life which He gave him. I do 
not say that He has a right to make His innocent and 
obedient creatures miserable, for He can not do in- 
justice to any of His creatures ; but as He gave life to 
every living thing, He has a right (if it were His will) 
to take it away from the living. Yet it is the pre 
rogative of God to invest any of His innocent creat- 
ures — any innocent man — with a right to surrender 
up his life rn any way, in obedience to the known will 
of God. He may confer this additional right upon 
whom He pleases; and this right He did confer upon 
Jesus Christ, who was the Son of man and the Son of 
God. "Therefore doth my Father love me, because I 
lay down my life, that I may take it again. No man 
taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have 
power (authority) to la}' it down, and I have power 
(authority) to take it again. This commandment have 
I received of my Father." Independently of inductive 
reasoning, this passage appears to establish the posi- 
tion that the Father did confer upon Jesus this special 



246 CHURCH-MEMBERS 1 HAND-BOOK OF THEOLOGY. 

and peculiar right to dispose of His life for a special 
purpose, and gave Him assurance that He should not 
remain under the power of death. Now, as He pos- 
sessed in Himself, and by divine authority, a right to 
receive that infliction of the penalty which was due to 
sinners, and no one else could be injuriously affected 
by it, I am not able to see how a charge of injustice 
can be imputed to the transaction. But when we pro- 
ceed to take into view the objects and results of the 
atonement thus made, in relation to Himself, all ap- 
pearance of injustice, in a practical point of view, 
seems to disappear. For with Him, (I speak of Him 
as a man,) His great object, purpose, and desire, in 
His life and death, was the glory of God — that God 
might be glorified in extending mercy to sinners, while 
His justice should remain unimpeachable. This par- 
amount desire he realized, and will forever rejoice, with 
a joy inconceivable by us, that, in suffering the pen- 
alty of the law for sinners, He was the means of ad- 
vancing the declarative glory of God far beyond any 
other exhibition of His glorious character that had 
ever before been made. If He, with all the willing- 
ness and zeal of which His nature was capable, 
chose to endure temporary suffering and death, (how- 
ever great the suffering might be for the time,) that 
He might be instrumental in achieving the most glo- 
rious object that even God Himself has in view, who 
will attach the character of injustice to that economy 
under which He suffered ? And, as a part of His re- 
ward, He became capacitated for a measure of enjoy- 
ment incomparably greater than He otherwise would 
have been capable of; and He is now, and ever 
will be, filled with a joy which no mortal man could 
sustain. Our mortal constitution would be overborne 



ATONEMENT. 247 

by the burden. The consciousness that He has the 
full approbation of His God — that God is well pleased 
with the sacrifice He made aod the service He ren- 
dered — will inspire His soul with a holy ecstasy ex- 
ceeding in measure any thing experienced by the 
highest order of angelic creatures. Thus He, "for 
the joy set before Him, endured the cross." "What a 
measureless compensation ! 

Again : When He shall have finished His work on 
earth, and the whole general assembly and church of 
the First-born, in a glorified state, shall be gathered into 
the heavenly sanctuary above, He may look around 
and survey the innumerable millions of glorified saints, 
all rapt in the fullness of heavenly ecstasy, and 
brought thither through the suffering He endured, and 
as the fruits of His death. "The grain can not bring 
forth fruit except it die: 1 ' and Jesus died and rose 
again, and now beholds the immeasurable fruits of His 
humiliation. Who shall attempt to estimate the bound- 
less joy which the contemplation of the scene around 
Him will inspire? A great "multitude which no man 
can number," of the sons and daughters of the Lord 
Almighty, all brought into this high relation and ex- 
alted to this glorious eminence through His obedience 
unto death. These are a part of "the riches of the 
glory of His inheritance in the saints." They are a part 
of His reward, for they are the purchase of His blood. 

There is yet one more consideration to which I 
must direct the reader's attention — a consideration in- 
finitely worthy of our highest thoughts, and which 
ought to inspire every soul with ineffable joy. It is 
that boundless glory which is conferred upon our suf- 
fering Substitute, as a part of the reward due to His 
humiliation and death. On this topic we can not en- 



248 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

large. The subject is, in itself, so high above all the 
powers of human conception, that our best thoughts 
shrink into insignificance. He is clothed with " all 
power in heaven and earth." All his enemies are sub- 
dued under His feet. He is made the "Head over all 
things," and " crowned with glory and honor" — "an- 
gels, and authorities, and powers, being made subject 
to Him." How clear, how explicit, is the following 
testimony : "And being found in fashion as a man, He 
humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, 
even the death of the cross ; wherefore God also hath 
highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is 
above every name, that at the name of Jesus every 
knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in 
earth, and things under the earth, and that every 
tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the 
glory of God the Father." This needs no comment. 
]!^one but an inspired j>en can express the infinite 
height of glory to which He who died on the cross is 
exalted ; and thus exalted because He " became obe- 
dient unto death, even the death of the cross." All the 
angels of God are required to worship Him; and their 
obedience is both their glory and their joy. 

In conventional transactions between men, when 
both parties fully understand all the interests involved 
on both sides, if the stipulated consideration is equal in 
value to the condition required, there is no fraud — there 
is no injustice. And taking into view all that the 
Scriptures fully warrant us in setting down as the re- 
ward of our Bedeemer's sufferings, and who will take 
upon him to say that the consideration is not equal 
to the condition? " He shall see of the travail of His 
soul and shall be satisfied." If there is any injustice 
in the whole transaction, we have a right to inquire 



ATONEMENT. 249 

to what point in the transaction does the injustice at- 
tach ? It must of necessity relate to the suffering party ; 
it can apply to no other. ]STo other being in existence 
can receive damage or be injuriously affected by it. 
He had a sovereign right to do what He did, in its 
relation to Himself as the suffering party; and in do- 
ing what He did, He infringed the right of no other 
being whatever. He that will object to the vicarious 
sufferings of Christ on the ground of injustice, should 
look well to see where he will find materials to sup- 
port his objection. 

The mere abstract question, Is it just that the inno- 
cent should suffer for the guilty f is one which we are 
not obliged to answer. The guilt of the person for 
whom the innocent suffers, has no concern with the 
justice or injustice of the suffering. Let us propose 
another question: Is it just that the innocent should 
suffer for the innocent? As to the injustice, it would be 
the same in one case as in the other. But neither can 
be made to comprehend the vicarious sufferings of 
Christ. The question in that case would more prop- 
erly be: Can it be just that an innocent person should 
suffer under law, provided he receives a plenary com- 
pensation for his sufferings? I believe that no man 
can prove the negative; and if the affirmative be ad- 
mitted, the question will then necessarily occur, Is it 
true that our Eedeemer is amply rewarded for the 
sacrifice He made for our redemption ? Now, as both 
the sufferings and the reward are great beyond all our 
powers of comprehension, we may not be able to give 
a positive and unqualified answer to this question by 
any comparison that we can make between the two, 
yet we think the testimony of G-od's word is fully suf- 
ficient to authorize an affirmative answer; and unless 



250 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

the objector can prove the negative, he is not entitled 
to advance the objection. 

It is too often represented as if Divine justice, in 
pursuing the sinner, is made to turn out of its proper 
course in order to find a substitute, and seizes upon 
our Surety. This is not so. This is misrepresenta- 
tion — unintentional, no doubt. Justice pursues its own 
legitimate course. Infinite mercy can not turn it 
aside. The immaculate holiness of the Son of God 
can not turn it aside. Justice (so to speak) was bent 
upon an equitable vindication of its injured rights and 
honor — its legitimate course was direct toward the sin- 
ner. Christ our Surety took our sins upon Himself, 
and voluntarily interposed His own person in the way 
of avenging justice, and rendered in full the required 
satisfaction ; then justice, being satisfied, pursues the 
sinner no further. There was no such thing as justice 
being turned out of its due course to fall on our Sub- 
stitute. But Christ, our Substitute,' voluntarily threw 
Himself under the ministration of wrath. If He suf- 
fered injustice, would it be too much to say that He 
was Himself the author of His own injury? It would 
appear to accord very well with what is written: 
"He gave Himself for us." " I lay down my life for 
the sheep." He offered up Himself. 

It is a principle of natural law that we may volun- 
tarily and innocently submit to labor, or endure suf- 
fering, with an assurance of securing an adequate re- 
ward ; and though it may not be worthy of being 
called an argument, I might appeal to a natural senti- 
ment in the mind of man, whether if he could live 
always here in this world, and be exempted from the 
pains and troubles incident to humanity, but by vol- 
untarily suffering death, with a certainty of being 



ATONEMENT. 251 

immediately raised to an eternal life, in a state incom- 
parably and inconceivably better than would be pos- 
sible in this life — whether he would not judge the latter 
preferable? Neither would he suppose that he would 
inflict upon himself any injustice or violate any prin- 
ciple of moral right. 

In thus presenting my thoughts on this question, I 
have not assumed the task of solving the question or 
explaining the mystery. I hope I have more correct 
views of my incompetency than to claim the ability to 
solve a mystery which, I believe, has repelled the ap- 
proach of all our learned divines. At least, if the sub- 
ject has been investigated, I am not aware of it; but 
I have read so few books on atonement that I am not 
prepared to say what has been written. My own mind 
having been somewhat perj)lexed with the question — 
and supposing it might be the case with others — I re- 
solved to give it the best investigation my time and 
opportunities would permit. The nature and design 
of this treatise compelled me to be brief. If I had 
been preparing a separate treatise on the atonement, 
I should have written much more in detail than I have 
done, and should also have referred to a number of 
scriptures which appear to me to bear directly on the 
subject. With one more remark I leave these thoughts 
to the consideration of the reader. If I did not believe 
that my Savior would Himself receive an ample re- 
ward for what He did and suffered for His people, my 
spirit could not rest. Must we live in the fear that 
when we shall be with Him, it will be our employ- 
ment to condole with Him on account of His uncom- 
pensated sufferings? 



252 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

Of the Value and Sufficiency of Atonement. 

We must admit that there is a real distinction be- 
tween the value of the atonement and its sufficiency. 
Perhaps these two topics might be treated to greater 
advantage by considering them separately ; but they 
are so essentially and so intimately connected, that a 
frequent reference from one to the other may be almost 
unavoidable. We shall, therefore, discuss them in con- 
nection, while we may not lose sight of the real dis- 
tinction. It is the value of the atonement which 
makes it acceptable in the sight of G-od ; it is the suf- 
ficiency of the atonement which makes it available in 
behalf of sinners. The intrinsic value of the atone- 
ment is derived from the Divine dignity of Him whose 
death made atonement, and its sufficiency arises from 
its real value. 

The Scriptures represent the infinite worth and in- 
herent efficacy of the atonement as being derived from 
the fact that it was made by the death of a Divine per- 
son — namely, the Son of God : " He gave Himself for 
us." " Christ loved the church and gave Himself for 
it." " Who (Christ) gave Himself for our sins." The 
fact that Christ gave Himself for us as an atonement 
for our sins, is sufficient of itself to determine the value 
of the sacrifice. Hence, also, we see the frequent allu- 
sions to the relation which Christ sustained to the 
Father in reference to His atoning death : "The blood 
of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin." 
"Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd, and against 
the man that is my Fellow!'' " If the Son shall make 
you free, ye shall be free indeed." " G-od sending His 
own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh," etc. " God 
sent forth His Son to redeem " etc. I have no doubt 



ATONEMENT. 253 

that the real worth and inherent excellency of the Son 
of God is greater than the whole creation — may I not 
say, infinitely greater? As the atonement is made to 
God — as the price of our redemption is paid to Him in 
vindication of His injured law — I suppose the reader 
will be willing to leave it with Him to judge of its 
value, and will take it for granted that, as God has ac- 
cepted it, there can be in it no deficiency of intrinsic 
merit. 

And although the sufficiency of the atonement may 
not be a more essential and vital principle than its 
value, there is more danger of an erroneous estimate 
being put upon it ; for, aside from such as may be 
more fundamental, a soul oppressed with a load of 
guilt, and conscious of his just desert of Divine wrath 
— groping in darkness, and, as yet, seeing no way of 
escape — his mind full of gloomy forebodings and con- 
fusion, (and such cases do occur,) Satan may tempt 
him to doubt whether even the death of Christ is 
sufficient to answer his desperate necessity. But, 
again, there is an error of far more frequent occur- 
rence, for it is almost universal — that men want to 
lend a little help to the death of Christ. They want 
to do something themselves by way of making satis- 
faction for past sins; or they will expect to bear 
some suffering themselves, either in mind or in body, 
to gain the favor of God. I believe it is no very un- 
common thing for persons to expect to suffer in this 
world in order to avoid suffering in the world to 
come. These false views arise from putting too low 
an estimate on the atonement of Christ; and, indeed, 
the religious errors arising from an inadequate ap- 
preciation of the sufficiency of the atonement are too 
numerous to admit of specification in this place. 



254 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

To determine the sufficiency of the atonement we 
must examine it in relation to the object which was 
to be accomplished by it, in a legal point of view. 
That object was to satisfy the claims of the Divine 
law — that is, to make complete satisfaction to Divine 
justice for our sins. Whatever was necessary to vin- 
dicate the integrity and honor of the Divine law, 
which we had transgressed, was indispensable to the 
sufficiency of the atonement. Nothing less would be 
sufficient, nothing more would be necessary, and noth- 
ing else would answer the purpose. In theological 
strictness, such a thing as an insufficient atonement 
is an impossibility ; because, if it does not effectually 
and perfectly accomplish the object, it is not atone- 
ment. Whatever might be done, if it does not effectu- 
ally and completely vindicate the justice, truth, 
authority, and honor of the moral law, it is a mis- 
nomer to call it atonement. The law imperatively 
required the infliction of the penalty — the whole pen- 
alty. That penalty is death ; and death is a final 
fact, beyond which the law does not go. Death is 
also indivisible ; it can not be so divided as to admit 
of a partial infliction. 

Now, if the offering up of a dove as a sacrifice for 
sin would perfectly satisfy the demands of the law, 
such a sacrifice would be a sufficient atonement, and 
nothing more would be needed. On the other hand, 
if the sacrifice of the Son of Grod, and with Him the 
whole universal creation, visible and invisible, would 
not make this requisite satisfaction, it would not be 
sufficient — it would not be atonement in any proper 
sense of the word. 

The sufficiency of the atonement does not depend 
upon the amount of the Eedeemer's sufferings. It was 



ATONEMENT. 255 

formerly held by some that Christ suffered in exact 
proportion to the amount of sin or guilt which was 
expiated by His atonement. This is plausible, at first 
sight, but it is certainly an error. This theory would 
determine the sufficiency of the atonement by the 
amount of suffering that all those who are saved would 
have borne, provided no atonement had been made. 

If the atonement consists essentially in suffering — in 
the pain and agony endured by our Surety — it would 
be impossible to obtain any definite idea of what it 
really is — it would be one of the most vague and in- 
definite conceptions imaginable. 

There is, in some respects, a true and proper analogy 
between commercial law and moral law, and it is allow- 
able and right to employ this analogy in illustrating 
the doctrine of the atonement. The rule of commer- 
cial law is, so much of one commodity for so much of 
another ; and strict commercial justice requires that 
the two shall be of equal value. We will suppose that 
A has injured B to the amount of one hundred dollars, 
and immediately repairs the damage to the full amount 
of the injury. This would be atonement in a commer- 
cial or pecuniary point of view. This would be exact 
justice, and the wrong would be rectified ; and this 
would be practicable, because the injury and the repa- 
ration, being both of the same nature and kind, the 
precise equivalent is ascertainable, and B would re- 
ceive all that justice would require. 

But let us take another example : Suppose that A is 
a man universally respected, every way worthy of the 
high esteem of the whole community, justly deserves 
and actually enjoys the confidence and love of all his 
acquaintance; and B, by slander and falsehood, de- 
stroys his fair reputation, and brings him into univer- 
22 



256 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

sal contempt, and thus A becomes the object of public 
detestation and disgrace, and must live under a load 
of infamy, with all its attendant evils, too numerous 
to admit of detail : bow is reparation to be made for 
this injury? If B, or any other for him, would give 
A the wealth of a kingdom, it would not repair the 
injury while A is still the object of scorn and contempt. 
No punishment that could be inflicted upon B, even if 
it should exceed the demerit of his crime, would re- 
dress the wrong. In fact, put both together, and all 
would do nothing at all towards making atonement. 
"What, then, would answer the specific demand ? It is 
easy to see the imperative requirement. A must be 
restored to the esteem, love, and confidence which he 
enjoyed before he was defamed. Let the vindication 
be in every respect and in full measure equal to the 
injury. This would meet the claims of justice; this 
would be atonement; this would be all that A would 
have a right to require. And though B might still 
deserve all the punishment due to his crime, yet A 
would have all his rights; and if he obtains all his 
rights, it matters not whether they are restored by B, 
or by another in his behalf. This illustration may as- 
sist us in understanding the true nature of the atone- 
ment, as well as in ascertaining its sufficiency. 

"We thus bring the inquiry to a point : That which 
is necessary and indispensable to atonement, and to 
the sufficiency of atonement, is, that the claims of the 
law, which stood against us, should be fully met at 
every point, and completely canceled. The justice of 
the law, the authority of the law, and the honor of the 
law must receive an ample vindication, and this can 
be done in no other way than by the infliction of the 
penalty. All this is accomplished by the death of 



ATONEMENT. 257 

Christ. A plenary and perfect satisfaction has been 
rendered to the claims of the law by Him. Thus the 
law has received all its rights, and claims no more. 
The satisfaction has been made to the law by Him 
for ns. In ourselves, we deserve the merited punish- 
ment, just as much as if nothing had been done. The 
obligation to obedience was fulfilled by our Surety, and 
the penalty for disobedience has been suffered by Him, 
and what more does the law require? It does not 
and can not require more. It has "recovered all." 

I might enlarge my discussion of this topic to a 
much greater extent ; I might adduce a number of ar- 
guments too strong to be successfully resisted ; I might 
quote a number of scriptures bearing directly on the 
point; but as the sufficiency of the atonement of 
Christ is so generally admitted, I do not think it nec- 
essary to detain the reader's attention on this point. 
I had prepared the materials, some of which I would 
willingly present to your notice, but will decline it, 
because there are a few things having connection with 
the subject, to which I wish to direct your attention for 
a few minutes: and there will then remain one more 
aspect of the atonement which will demand considera- 
tion. 

We have already said the value and sufficiency of 
the atonement does not depend upon, or consist in, the 
amount of the mere sufferings of Him whose death 
made it; but it can not be denied that both writers 
and speakers express themselves in language that 
would seem to imply that doctrine — to leave the im- 
pression on the mind that it was the greatness of the 
sufferings endured by our Savior that removed the 
i;urse of the law from us. If the intensity of the Ee- 
(eemer's sufferings was that which constituted the 



258 CHURCH-MEMBERS 7 HAND-BOOK OF THEOLOGY. 

value and efficacy of the atonement, then the penalty 
of the law is suffering — the endurance of pain ; and in 
this view it would be difficult to defend the God of love 
from the imputation of delighting in the misery of 
His creatures. He delights in being just, and in doing 
justice in the administration of His government; and 
His justice requires that He should inflict the deserved 
punishment on the wicked ; but this is a very different 
thing from taking pleasure in the miseries even of His 
sinful subjects, for such pleasure would inevitably 
imply malignity \ which is no part of the -Divine char- 
acter. 

Let us say the penalty of the law is death, and 
Christ suffered the penalty for us. What can be 
plainer and more simple than this? It *is as definite 
and specific as any commercial transaction can be. 
But it is not my wish or design to depreciate the suf- 
ferings of the cross, or to reduce them within the 
limits of moderation, or even within the bounds of 
comprehension ; but to guard against ascribing to the 
mere suffering that which is due to the power and 
efficacy of His triumphant death ; for there is compar- 
atively so much said about His overwhelming suffer- 
ings, and comparatively so little of His death, that 
there is danger of insinuating a false idea at the very 
point where simple truth is all -important. These suf- 
ferings are often made the theme of eloquence, and 
surely it is the grandest and most sublime subject, be- 
yond comparison, upon which the powers of oratory 
can be employed. But transcendently great as were 
our Eedeemer's sufferings — great beyond conception — 
yet there is one thing that is greater — that is, His death. 
The death of the Son of God is the greatest event that 
has ever transpired in God's universe, of which we 



ATONEMENT. 259 

have any knowledge. Without this, all the sufferings 
which the Lord Jesus underwent, or could have en- 
dured, never would have made His humiliation com- 
plete, or brought His saving hand within reach of 
lost sinners. This act of submission by the Lord of 
all, stands in pre-eminent glory above all else within 
the compass of time and space. If the Son of God had 
suffered all the pain and agony that it was possible 
for His Divine and human natures to sustain, without 
total extinction, from the hour that He was laid in the 
manger till this present hour, if there had been no 
death, there would have been no atonement. Any 
thing called (or miscalled) atonement that does not 
include the death of Christ, precludes the possibility 
of His resurrection and glorification, and, by conse- 
quence, the resurrection and glorification of all His 
saints. 

All the while that I have been discoursing on thi? 
subject, I have proceeded on the ground that Christ 
suffered the penalty of the law. I am aware, how- 
ever, that this has been denied. I am in possession 
of the arguments by which the opposite theory is sup- 
ported ; and I think T could show the inconsistency and 
fallacy of their reasoning. But I do not design to say 
much upon this topic, because I think a very little will 
be sufficient to make it evident that the theory can 
not be sustained. A late writer on atonement says : 
"It is not meant by the atonement that Christ endured 
the literal penalty of the law." If He did not endure 
the literal penalty, He did not endure the penalty at 
all, for there is no other penalty; but we will let that 
pass. That we have incurred the penalty of the law 
by our transgressions, and are liable to its infliction, 
needs no proof to any one that acknowledges the 



260 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

truth of the Scriptures ; and Christ has said that not one 
jot or tittle of the law shall fail. Now, if Christ did not 
suffer the penalty of the law for his people, and they do 
not suffer it themselves, what becomes of the penalty? 
for it is manifest that it is never inflicted ; and thus 
that part of the law which gives it its condemning 
power fails, or else we are still exposed to its inflic- 
tion. But the apostle says there is now no condemna- 
tion to them who are in Christ Jesus. The same au- 
thor says that Christ did not suffer the penalty of the 
law, but something else — something less. In what 
sense, then, were His sufferings vicarious? If He did 
not suffer that which we should have suffered, I am 
not able to see how His sufferings could be properly 
vicarious. 

That the atonement has special respect to the law, is 
so abundantly taught in the Scripture as to preclude 
the necessity of particular reference. But if Christ, 
in making atonement, did not suffer the penalty of 
the law, we can see no connection between the atone- 
ment and the law ; for it is precisely in that very 
point — the penalty — that the connection subsists; and 
if the penalty of the law may be set aside without be- 
ing inflicted — merely dispensed with — the obligation 
may be dispensed with also, for it has lost its power 
to enforce its authority. Such a transaction is not 
atonement; it is simply a compromise — a compromise at 
the sacrifice of the justice of the obligation and the 
truth of the threatening. 

But, aside from these considerations, what is the 
bearing that this scheme must necessarily have upon 
other doctrines? In what light does it place the 
faithfulness of God ? He makes a most solemn threat, 
founded on a verity more stable and permanent than 



ATONEMENT. 261 

the heavens and the earth, and then disregards it — or, 
to say the best, He evades it! What now am I to 
think of His promises? He threatens death through 
the law, 'and fails to execute the threatening. He also 
promises eternal life through Jesus Christ, and may 
He not as easily recant His promise? I should sup- 
pose the truth of ±he one would be as sacred in His 
eyes as the truth of the other. What a precarious 
foundation for the believing sinner to rest upon ! He 
can never attain to the "full assurance of faith." I 
might extend this argument further, but I will only 
say: "We are become dead to the law by the body 
of Christ." "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse 
of the law, being made a curse for us." He was " made 
under the law, to redeem them that were under the 
law." 

The Extent of the Atonement. 

I believe that theological writers generally speak of 
the extent of the atonement in its relation to the num- 
ber of those for whom the atonement was made. 

In bringing this subject under discussion, it will not 
be impertinent to make a few preparatory observa- 
tions : 

1. I understand by "the atonement," that satisfac- 
tion for sin which Christ, by His death, rendered to 
the Divine law on behalf of sinners. It is in this 
sense that I shall use the term, believing it to be the 
only proper theological meaning. 

2. Any theory of atonement that does not actually 
and effectually secure all that for which an atonement 
was necessary, is essentially defective and erroneous. 
It must perfectly accomplish the design and all the # 
legitimate results which it contemplates, both in its 
relations to God and also to men. 



262 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

3. On this subject we can know nothing except 
what God has revealed in His word. All reasonings, 
except legitimate inferences from the inspired word, 
are worthless ; all speculations and arguments drawn 
from the analogies of nature on the extent of the 
atonement are inadmissible. 

4. The atonement is, in itself — in its nature, in its 
intrinsic merit — sufficient for the redemption of the 
whole family of mankind. Considered irrespective of 
any design in its application, it is sufficient for all the 
human family. If, as we have stated in our second 
observation, the atonement does completely fill and 
satisfy all its relations to God, it must be sufficient for 
all ; for, in its relations to God, if it is not sufficient 
for all, it is not sufficient for one. 

To the principles laid down in these observations, 
we shall probably have occasion to recur as we proceed. 

Viewing the atonement in the light above presented, 
we will attempt a brief discussion of the extent of 
the vicarious death of Christ, in its subjective and 
personal relations. 

It is not my intention to review every theory of 
atonement which has been proposed to the ignorance 
and credulity of £he religious world ; for of some of 
them I supposel know nothing, and of some that have 
fallen incidentally under my notice I am unacquainted 
with the arguments by which they profess to establish 
or defend their systems. But I know that they do 
not build upon Scripture evidence, because their 
schemes are so utterly remote from any thing taught 
in the word of God that I should have to go too far 
out of my line to take any notice of them ; and my 
readers will be none the worse off by remaining igno- 
rant of them. 



ATONEMENT. 263 

There are four different theories of atonement which 
we shall attempt to examine, and the greater part 
of what we shall say on the extent of the atonement 
will be included in the discussion of these different 
schemes. 

1. It has been held that the death of Christ was, so 
much suffering for so much sin; and hence that the 
atonement was not only intended for the elect only, but 
that it was not sufficient for any more. This has been 
called the commercial view of atonement. 

2. Another theory is, that atonement was not made 
for persons at all — that it was simply made for sin, 
irrespective of the persons who were to be made par- 
takers of the benefit. This has been styled indefinite 
atonement. 

3. Others maintain that the atonement is strictly 
personal, and that it was made for all persons — for 
every person, and for every one alike — and in the same 
respects. Not only that it is sufficient in itself for the 
whole race of mankind, but that it was designed for 
all, and for one as much as for another — for those that 
are lost as much as for those that are saved. This 
view is properly denominated a universal atonement. 

[Note. — I have here stated this view of the atonement 
as correctly as I know how, according to my understand- 
ing of their views.] 

4. Again, there are some who hold that the atone- 
ment is strictly personal ; and was made specially, as 
atonement, for those only who will be ultimately 
saved, but that in its nature and inherent merit it is 
sufficient for the redemption of the whole world. This 
is called particular or special atonement. 

Of these several schemes of atonement we shall dis- 
course in the above order, and we shall endeavor, as 
23 



264 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

far as we are able, to do impartial justice to each — that 
is, so far as I shall extend the discussion. It would be 
as lawful for me as for any other man to present all 
the arguments and scriptures at my command, on one 
side of the question, and leave entirely out of view 
such as might be alleged on the other side. But I am 
not sure that the Judge would approve such an ex parte 
examination. 

1. The theory first laid down, which has been called 
the commercial view of atonement, was the subject of 
much controversy some years ago, but as I do not think 
it has many advocates in the present age, I shall not 
dwell upon it at great length. It is the most restricted 
scheme of any that has ever been adopted. There is 
something in it which appears plausible at the first 
sight; but it is liable to some objections, which its ad- 
herents have not been able to remove. It is objected 
by those who oppose it, that it is inconsistent with the 
universal call of the gospel. Sinners are universally 
invited to the blessings of the gospel, on the ground 
that Christ has died for sinners. If, therefore, the atone- 
ment is sufficient for the elect only, and the merit 
and efficacy of the death of Christ are not sufficient for 
any more, the non-elect are invited to that which, in 
point of fact, has no existence. I do not see how this 
objection can be obviated ; for if sinners are saved 
only througb the atonement of Christ, and can not be 
saved in any other way, it is not even within the 
power of God to save any except those who will be 
saved. Indeed, I think we may safely extend this 
principle still further, even to the whole length of say- 
ing that it was not within the power of God to make 
any provision for the redemption of the non -elect; for 
I am fully persuaded that all has been done that 



ATONEMENT. 265 

could be done — that is, by icay of atonement. God has 
given His well-beloved Son to become incarnate, and 
to die for the redemption of sinners, and what more 
could He give? If He had also given the whole crea- 
tion in addition, it could not have added any thing to 
the worth and power of the death of Christ as atone- 
ment. Such a bloodless sacrifice could have accom- 
plished nothing as a satisfaction for sin, for it had no 
adaptation to such an end. If I am correct in these 
views, it follows necessarily that it never was within 
the power of God to provide for the salvation of any 
more of the human family than what will be saved ; 
but of any such inability on God's part, we have no 
hint in the Bible — the contrary seems to be every- 
where assumed, and in many places plainly taught. In 
saving sinners, God acts in the freeness of His will, and 
not under any limitations of His power. 

2. That scheme of atonement which has been termed 
indefinite, supposes that the atonement was not made 
for persons ; but simply that it was made for sin, or on 
account of sin, without reference to sinners personally. 
This impersonal view of the death of -the Son of God 
has something in it so distant, so cold and abstract, 
that it would require some force of evidence to make 
it acceptable ; nevertheless, if it could be substanti- 
ated by the word of God, it ought to be received. I 
object to it, in the first place, because it appears to me 
to exclude the love of God from atonement. It is very 
clearly taught in Scripture that it was because God 
loved us that He sent His Son to be a propitiation for 
our sins ; and if His love was personal, the propitia- 
tion must be personal also. It is also taught, with 
equal clearness, that Christ died for us because He 
loved us. The exercises of Divine love must, of neces- 



266 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

sity, be personal; and if the atonement is not personal, 
love is excluded. 

I object to it, in the second place, because, so far as 
I can see, the death of Christ can not be vicarious. 
Any view of atonement that excludes, or, does not ad- 
mit, the substitutional principle as essential to a 
proper atonement, can never obtain my assent; but if 
Christ did not die for persons, His death can not be 
vicarious. If He died merely for sin, having no re- 
spect to personal sinners, He was either not a substi- 
tute, or He was the substitute of a mere abstraction. 

I object to it, thirdly, because, so far as atonement 
is concerned, it excludes the mediatorship of Christ. 
It is an indispensable condition of mediatorial action 
that there should be two parties; but if Christ, in mak- 
ing atonement, had no respect to persons, there was 
but the one party. "A mediator is not a mediator of 
one, but God is one.". There is one Mediator between 
God and men, the man Christ Jesus. That the atone- 
ment belongs to the mediatorship, admits of no debate. 

There is yet a fourth objection which I must oppose 
to an indefinite atonement — an objection which, if 
tenable, would supersede the necessity of making any 
other; and that it is tenable, I have no doubt: I find 
it impossible to reconcile this indefinite scheme of 
atonement with a great number of scriptures. Both 
the meaning and the very words of Scripture contra- 
dict it. If a text speaks of the atonement, on the one 
hand, and, on the other, if the language is plainly per- 
sonal, that is all that is necessary to prove the point. 
" While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." 
" For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to 
God by the death of His Son." "For even Christ, our 
Passover, is sacrificed for us." "Christ hath redeemed 



ATONEMENT. 267 

us from the curse of the law." In these passages the 
references to the atonement are too plain to be 
doubted ; and that the atonement thus referred to re- 
lates to persons, is evident, for the personal pronouns 
we and us will admit of no other application. The 
attentive reader of the New Testament will find a num- 
ber of others without my quoting them here. 

3. Those who maintain the doctrine of universal 
atonement do not deny that it is personal. They hold 
that Christ, by His death, made atonement for the 
whole human family — for all and for every one, and 
for all alike — for one as much as for another. 

To do justice to this scheme of atonement it is 
proper to say that it differs from the one last consid- 
ered, in that it fully recognizes subjective personality. 
Its advocates contend that atonement was made for 
persons — for personal sinners. It differs also from that 
which is called the commercial plan of atonement. 
They maintain that the atonement was sufficient for the 
world, and also that it was designed for all. It may 
be proper to remark further, that the difference be- 
tween this scheme of universal atonement, and the 
theory next to be considered, has been signified on a 
preceding page, and will come more fully into view as 
we proceed with our discussion of the general subject. 

Those who advocate the doctrine of universal atone- 
ment rely (if I understand them) mainly on three 
sources of evidence to support their theory : 1. On 
arguments drawn from the analogies of nature; 2. On 
arguments derived from fundamental truths revealed 
in the Scriptures ; 3. On particular texts of Scripture. 

1. The arguments drawn, professedly, from the 
analogies of nature are so foreign, so inappropriate 
and inapplicable, as to be unworthy of tire reader's 



268 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

notice. I shall therefore not tax his patience by 
stating them. 

2. To reason from general and fundamental truths, 
clearly revealed in the inspired writings, is perfectly 
lawful; and on some subjects we have no need of more 
forcible and decisive arguments than legitimate deduc- 
tions of this kind ; but in general they require very 
close and critical examination, lest we should accept 
larger inferences than the premises will justify. 

I have read comparatively but few authors on the 
doctrine of atonement; and of the few whose works I 
have examined, some appear to me to neglect the dis- 
tinction between the sufficiency of the atonement and 
the design. That there is a real distinction, is obvious, 
and must be acknowledged by every one who will give 
the subject a little reflection ; and while the writers 
alluded to recognize this distinction, and occasionally 
advert to it, yet in their arguments they seem to lose 
sight of it, and to interblend the two topics so much 
that it is scarcely possible to know to which of the two 
they direct their arguments. 

I lay it down as a fundamental principle, that the 
atonement made by the death of Christ does effectu- 
ally and perfectly answer all the ends and designs for 
which it was made. It meets and fills the whole 
necessity which required the intervention of an atone- 
ment. This. I suppose, will not be contested. Hence, 
in all its relations to God as Sovereign Lawgiver and 
Judge, it must be absolutely perfect and complete, 
both essentially and comprehensively; for any defect or 
deficiency would vitiate the whole transaction, and 
render all its contemplated results abortive. 

From these considerations it must follow that the 
atonement, in its nature— in its intrinsic worth and 



ATONEMENT. 269 

merit — is sufficient for the redemption of the whole 
family of sinful men, provided it were the will of God 
to apply it to all. And not only is it a sufficient 
ground to admit of the salvation of all, but it must 
insure the certain and inevitable salvation of all to 
whom an application of its benefits is made; but the 
fact that it is in itself sufficient for all, is no proof that 
it was intended that all should have a personal inter- 
est in its provisions. 

It would be inconsistent in the extreme, even to the 
point of absurdity, to suppose that the all-wise God 
would, at so great a sacrifice, provide an atonement 
for lost sinners which would not be sufficient to satisfy 
His own will, and competent to answer all His own 
purposes. And if it is conceded that, so far as an 
atonement was necessary, that which was made by 
the death of the Son of God is, in itself — in its merit 
and efficacy — sufficient for the necessity of all the 
human family, so that nothing more, by way of atone- 
ment, would be necessary, if the salvation of all were 
intended, it will follow that, whatever limitation 
there may be in its application to sinners, such restric- 
tion must depend upon the sovereign purpose of God; 
so that arguments to prove the sufficiency of the 
atonement, which would be relevant and appropriate, 
would prove nothing at all respecting any limitation 
of the design for which it was made. 

1. It is thought by some that an inference may be 
drawn from the nature of the atonement, that it was 
intended to have application to all men. They allege 
that the atonement is just what we might suppose it 
would be on the supposition that it was intended for all 
men. Now, it is a sound maxim in logical reasoning, 
that "an argument that proves too much, proves noth- 



270 church-members' hand book of theology. 

ing ; " and this argument would have the same force 
and the same propriety if urged in favor of universal 
salvation. If it had been the purpose of God to save 
the whole human family, the nature of the atonement 
would be just what it is. The argument, therefore, 
proves too much. On the other hand, the nature and 
intrinsic worth of the atonement is just what it would 
be if it had been made for but one sinner. Whatever 
weight the argument might have, if employed to prove 
the sufficiency of the atonement, it can have no pro- 
priety of application to the design of its personal ap- 
plication. 

Those writers who plead for a universal atonement 
speak of the nature of the atonement as being such 
that it is applicable to all men, and as having some 
reference to all men ; thus adopting modes of ex- 
pression of the most vague and indeterminate mean- 
ing. While professing to show how far the atone- 
ment was designed to be extended in its saving re- 
lations, they only show how far (by the will of God) 
it might be extended; thus losing sight of the distinc- 
tion between the sufficiency of the atonement and its 
design. To tell the reader that the atonement must 
have some reference to all men, will afford him very 
little instruction, unless I tell him that it was the 
purpose of God that it should have the same refer- 
ence to all men alike; for this seems to be the idea 
they wish to convey to the reader's mind. 

Some of the advocates of universal atonement ad- 
mit that "if Christ endured the literal penalty of the 
law, the doctrine of a limited atonement must be 
true." Now, there is no other penalty of the law 
but the literal penalty; but we will waive that. But 
as certainly as it is the determined purpose of God 



ATONEMENT. 271 

to maintain the honor of His law and the truth of 
its threatening, so certainly the penalty of the law 
must fall somewhere; and if it did not fall on Jesus 
Christ as the sinner's substitute, it will fall on the 
sinner. Let every sinner — even those writers them- 
selves — be prepared for this ; for it is inevitable. 
Let me here propose a few questions to the reader : 
Is not the penalty of the law death ? And did not 
Christ suffer death for sinners ? If these should be 
answered in the affirmative, what perverse sophistry 
it is to say that Christ did not suffer the penalty of the 
law. 

2. These writers, by a similar mode of reasoning, 
draw the same inference from the Divine dignity of 
Him who made atonement: and this argument is liable 
to the same objections. It proves too much. The dig- 
nity of the Son of God is such that we may as ration- 
ally infer that He was as able to save eternally the 
whole human family as that He was able to make 
atonement for them ; and the Universalist is as much 
entitled to the benefit of this argument as the believer 
in a universal atonement. They suppose that the idea 
of a universal atonement better "fits in " with the rank 
and dignity of Him who made it than a limited atone- 
ment. And would not a universal salvation also better 
"fit in 91 with the dignity of the Son of God (in foolish 
man's conception) than a limited salvation? Let me 
treat the reader to a specimen of their systematical 
reasoning. They say: "If the atonement had been 
made by a mere man." it would necessarily have been 
limited; or, "If it had been made by an angel," it 
must also have been limited. Thus they tell us very 
seriously what would have been the result if a natural 
impossibility had come to pass. It would be equally as 



272 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

rational, and equally as creditable, to speak of an 
atonement being made by a mouse, as by an angel or 
a mere man. And, after all, what is the - difference? 
We admit that an atonement made by a Divine person 
must possess in itself a value and glory corresponding 
with the dignity of Him who made it; but if it is a 
real, a veritable vicarious atonement, it must be as capa- 
ble of application to the whole world, if made by an 
angel or a mere man, as if made by the Lord of glory. 

The rank and dignity of the Redeemer are supposed 
to be such as they would he on the supposition that the 
atonement was intended to be general. This is true; 
and it is also true that they are just what they would 
and must be if the atonement was intended to save but 
one sinner. If Christ were not the Son of God, He 
could not make any atonement at all. Such flimsy and 
spurious arguments may have, in some measure, the 
effect intended by the authors, but their insignificance 
is very easily exposed. 

The very terms employed in discussing the subject 
are sometimes highly objectionable, and even offensive 
to the heart of a pious and intelligent Christian. They 
speak of Christ as having been selected for the work in 
consequence, or on the ground of His rank and dig- 
nity, with a view to guard us against the supposition 
of any limitation of the atonement. The term selected 
implies that there were others as well as He who might 
have been chosen ; and though they were inferior in 
rank and dignity, yet they were competent, for other- 
wise there was no propriety in speaking of His being 
selected. How disparaging to the honor of the Son of 
God to be told that there were others who could have 
redeemed lost sinners if He had declined the service. 

3. It is supposed that data may be found in the med- 



ATONEMENT. 273 

iatorial administration' of the Divine government to 
warrant an inference in favor of universal atonement. 
Arguments legitimately derived from the mediatorship 

of our great High Priest are certainly worthy of the 
highest consideration ; and any argument professing 
to have its foundation there should not be disregarded. 
It is a very easy task to prove that Jesus Christ is 
invested with the administration of the universal gov- 
ernment of God; and this argument proceeds on the 
hypothesis that the atonement is the basis of His med- 
iatorial government. This hypothesis will admit of 
debate: and I ask permission, without giving offense, 
to say a few words : If we accept this assumption, it 
must be on certain conditions and with some modifi- 
cation. It involves a theme that opens a wide field to 
our contemplation. To explore this field even very 
partially, would impose upon us more labor and in- 
tense reflection than would comport with the design 
of this work — more, indeed, than I would be willing 
to impose upon the reader or upon myself. I must, 
therefore, content myself with making a few brief sug- 
gestions : 

All things in the natural and moral creation are 
mediatorially related to God through Christ; for so the 
Scriptures plainly teach. But when I speak of the 
mediatorial government of Christ I have special refer- 
ence to His being a Mediator between God and sinners, 
for the purpose of reconciliation ; and as, in this point 
of view, He is the Mediator of the " New Covenant'' His 
mediatorial administration is comprehended within, 
and bounded by, the conditions and provisions of the 
New Covenant. It would, therefore, seem to me more 
proper to say that the basis of His mediatorial govern- 
ment is the New Covenant ; for the atonement is 



274 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

certainly a fundamental condition of the covenant of 
grace, and it is also a part of His mediatorial admin- 
istration. In ascertaining and defining the extent of 
the atonement, I do not see that we are authorized to 
go beyond the extent of His strictly mediatorial admin- 
istration ; nor do I see how we can consistently carry 
either of these beyond the extent of that covenant of 
which He is the Mediator. I confess it appears to me 
that if we pass the boundaries of the strictly mediatorial 
administration of Christ — as the Mediator of the New 
Covenant — we fall at once under that universal moral 
government of God, of which Christ is the adminis- 
trator, but not a mediator — using the term mediator in 
its evangelical sense. 

I had made up my mind not to take any notice of 
this particular point; but, considering its important 
bearing on the question of the extent of the atone- 
ment, I doubted whether I would be justifiable in the 
omission ; especially as I thought an intimation in 
that direction might be acceptable to some who may 
read this work. 

But aside from the considerations presented above, 
let us ascertain what inferences the aforesaid hypothe- 
sis will justify, and whether the arguments founded 
upon the proposition are legitimately derived. 

1" find myself at a loss how to proceed in attempting 
to canvass the arguments employed to support the 
validity of their deductions. The reason is, their lan- 
guage is so general and indefinite that I am unable to 
ascertain the precise idea that they seem willing to 
convey to the mind of the reader. 

They assume, as a first principle, or at least as a 
primary proposition, that as all power and authority 
are given into the hands of the Mediator, and as this 



ATONEMENT. 275 

dominion is given to Him on the ground that He has 
made atonement, this atonement must have some refer- 
ence to the whole human race. 

But right here the question will present itself, 
What reference has the atonement to the whole human 
family? Does it have the same reference to those 
that are saved that it has to those that are lost? 
This is precisely the question that requires solution ; 
and while they propose to discuss this question, 
they seem to me to direct their arguments against 
those who advocate the commercial scheme of atone- 
ment, and the prime question receives very little at- 
tention. They hold that the atonement has a bearing 
or influence on the whole creation, and especially on 
the angels, who are desirous to learn the glorious 
mysteries of the cross. This we do not deny; but 
does the atonement have the same reference to these 
angels that it does to those sinners who are washed 
from their sins in the blood of the Lamb? The di- 
viding of the waters of the Bed Sea had a very im- 
portant reference to the Canaanites and to the Egyp- 
tians, and even to us, and to all in every age and every 
place where the Bible is found ; but were the waters 
of the Red Sea divided to make a way for us to pass 
through ? Was it done for the benefit of Pharaoh and 
his army? Was it intended to be an advantage to the 
Canaanites? Did that miraculous interposition have 
the same reference to the Egyptians that it had to the 
Israelites ? To speak, therefore, of the atonement as 
having some relations to the whole race of man, with- 
out indicating whether such relations are saving rela- 
tions — without signifying whether it has the same rela- 
tion to those who are saved that it has to those that 
are not saved — without making any allusion to the 



276 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

specific design of God in providing the atonement — I 
say to treat the subject in this way conveys very little 
instruction to the mind of an ingenious inquirer. 

The whole work of making atonement is the same, 
whether it was the divine purpose that many shall be 
actually saved by it or only a few. And the reward of 
the Redeemer for this service — that is, His exaltation — 
is the same, whether in its personal relations it extends 
to all or only to a part; and as His elevation to the 
throne of government is the reward of His humiliation 
and obedience unto death, I do not see how it justifies 
the inference of a universal atonement any more than 
it would justify an inference in favor of a universal 
salvation. 

In His exaltation, He becomes "Head overall things 
to the Church " — to the Church, for the Church's sake. 
The grand object to be accomplished by the atonement 
was the redemption of His Church. But why should 
we extend the efficacy of the atonement, considered as 
atonement, beyond the necessity that required it, and 
apply it to objects which were never affected by sin, 
and never could be? It was sin that made an atone- 
ment necessary ; and when that necessity was fully met 
and supplied, atonement, as such, can have no further 
action or proper application. The fruits of atonement — 
its various results or consequences — may be extended 
far and wide, both as it respects Him who made it and 
those for whom it was made; but these do not belong 
to the essence or inherent nature of the atonement. 

In connection with the mediatorial government of 
Christ, and by the same process of reasoning, an infer- 
ence is drawn in favor of universal atonement, from 
the fact that Christ is to judge the world at the last 
day. But this argument is liable to the same objections 



ATONEMENT. 277 

as the other, and may be answered in the same way. 
In the final judgment, the King will say to those on 
His right hand, " Come, ye blessed," etc.; and to those 
on His left band, "Depart, ye cursed," etc. Xow, the 
question is, Does the atonement have the same relation 
to one of those parties that it has to the other ? Both 
parties stand, in the same relation to Him as a Judge. 
Do they stand in the same relation to Him as a Re- 
deemer? Or, taking the question in another form and 
more directly to the point under discussion, Was the 
atonement designed (intended') for one of those parties 
as much as for the other? If the atonement does not 
have an equal relation to both, and was designed to 
effect as much for one as for the other, the argument 
proves too much ; and the same may be said of the 
argument in favor of universal atonement as deduced 
from the fact that all — both the just and the unjust — 
will be raised from the dead through Christ ; for 
some will come forth " to resurrection of life," and 
others " to the resurrection of damnation." Shall we 
attribute the damnation of the wicked to the atone- 
ment? I repeat, that those writers, if I understand 
their arguments, do not observe the distinction between 
the sufficiency and the design of the atonement. If 
their object is to prove the sufficiency of the atone- 
ment, their arguments may be entitled to considera- 
tion ; but I do not think they adopt the best method 
of attaining the end in view. The true way of estab- 
lishing this doctrine is to examine it in its relations 
to God. If it meets and satisfies these relations; if it 
completely vindicates the integrity and honor of Di- 
vine justice; if it fully and effectually satisfies all the 
demands of the law against sinners, this is all the 
sufficiency that the necessity requires. If its suffi- 



278 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

ciency is such that God is "well pleased" with it, it 
must of necessity be sufficient for all the purposes of 
an atonement in its relations to us ; for it must, of 
course, remove all legal obstacles out of the way of any 
sinner's acceptance with God ; that is, there can be no 
legal ground why God may not apply its benefits to 
any sinner, so far as it is His good pleasure to extend 
it. And that the atonement is sufficient for these 
purposes, we need no other proof than the fact that 
Christ rose from the dead, and is seated at the right 
hand of the Majesty on high. I do not say that no 
other proof can be adduced, but it is sufficient to su- 
persede the necessity of additional proof. 

But let the sufficiency of the atonement be estab- 
lished on as strong grounds as it may, it will prove 
nothing to the purpose as to the design for which it 
was made, in a personal and numerical point of view. 
There being no limitation in respect to its sufficiency, 
whatever limitation there may be must respect the 
design for which it was made in regard to its applica- 
tion. Hence those writers admit that "by the sovereign 
purpose of God" in the appropriation of its benefits, it 
might be limited to a part only of the human family; 
and that the reason why all are not saved through the 
atonement is to be sought for in the Divine purpose. 
This is coming exactly to the point. It is the pivot 
upon which the whole question turns ; and the discus- 
sion might very properly be confined to this topic ; 
but they have but little to say on this essential point. 

When the advocates of universal atonement resort 
to the analogies of nature for arguments to support 
their theory, we refuse to follow them. We know 
they can never find the atonement of Christ out of the 
Bible. But we freely accord to them the privilege of 



ATONEMENT. 279 

reasoning from Scripture doctrines; and we have en- 
deavored to consider their arguments derived from 
that source as impartially as we could. But they do 
not rely upon these sources alone for proof, but claim 
to be sustained by the direct statements of Holy 
Scripture. We shall now therefore take into view 
those texts which it is thought support their scheme. 
In doing this, we shall state their own arguments 
founded on those scriptures; and also submit to the 
reader's attention what has been said, or maybe said, 
in opposition to their views. I do not see how I can 
be impartial without presenting, as fairly as I am able, 
both sides of the question. But there is one thing 
that the reader should keep constantly in his mind ; it 
is this: When any particular text of Scripture is of- 
fered in proof of a particular doctrine, we must first 
ascertain the true meaning of the text itself; for if the 
passage in its true meaning does not support the doc- 
trine, it is no proof. 

In the third chapter of John (vers. 16,17) we read: 
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only- 
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should 
not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent 
not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but 
that the world through Him might be saved." This 
passage is relied upon with a great deal of confidence. 
But, on the other hand, it may be said that there is no 
direct reference to the atonement in the text. I do 
not say there is nothing in the text that has a favor- 
able bearing on their doctrine ; but I think that when 
the text is fully and fairly examined it will be seen 
that it is far from being conclusive. They lay a great 
deal of stress on the term "world," and this they must 
do, or they can not make the text available to their 
24 



280 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

purpose. But if they adhere to this rule, it will prove 
more than they would be willing to admit ; it would 
answer the purpose of those who would use it to prove 
the doctrine of universal salvation as well as it does 
to prove universal atonement. In fact, I am not sure 
but the Universalist can frame a more plausible ar- 
gument upon it than the other, As a proof-text, the 
degree of evidence it affords must depend largely 
ivpon the true interpretation of the text itself. Let 
us then look at their own exposition. They say our 
Savior was intending to teach Nicodemus that His 
religion was not to be confined to the Jews, but was 
designed for the benefit of all nations. This interpre- 
tation is plausible, and, indeed, we may say it is 
rational, for we know the strong prejudices of the 
Jews in regard to the Gentiles, and it is often referred 
to in the New Testament. We must admit that it is 
not stated in the passage, that our Savior had this 
object in view; but I can find no evidence to the con- 
trary. If, then, w T e adopt this interpretation, it will 
fully justify the form of expression used by our 
Savior without the least allusion to the atonement; 
and it is certain that there is no reference to the atone- 
ment in the passage, except by a distant implication. 
If we will correctly understand those scriptures in 
which we find this general phrase, "the world" we are 
compelled to have recourse to the connection and to 
the object of the writer, so far as that can be ascer- 
tained ; for if we adhere tenaciously to the meaning 
assigned to it by the writers referred to, we shall find 
it difficult, if not impossible, to defend the inspired 
writers from the charge of self-contradiction. And we 
shall find it equally difficult to avoid universal salva- 
tion ; and as there are other passages adduced by those 



ATONEMENT. 281 

authors in support of their views, it may not be amiss 
to make a few observations on this subject, with a 
view to guard ourselves against the danger of false 
interpretations. Whoever will take the trouble — 
and the trouble would not be great — to collate and 
compare those places in which John uses the phrase 
" the world," will be convinced, if he has any candor, 
that this apostle uses it with a great deal of latitude. 
It is alleged that the language in the text is as general 
as can be used. But they themselves would not pre- 
tend that the phrase is always to be understood in a 
strictly universal sense. It is a good rule to compare 
scn*2)ture with scripture; and it is especially neces- 
sary to compare the language, in different places, of 
the same inspired writer when he uses the same terms. 
In the First Epistle of John (v. 19) it is said: "And 
we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth 
in wickedness." But the context proves that the 
phrase u the whole world" must not be applied in a 
strictly universal sense ; and I will not contend obsti- 
nately for the application of a rule of interpretation 
to a passage which seems to give support to my views, 
when I will not submit to its application to one that 
is contrary to my sentiments. 

jSTow, in connection with the text referred to in 
John's gospel, let us consider some other passages 
which contain the same phrase, and which are relied 
on by the advocates of universal atonement with a 
great deal of assurance. 1 John ii. 2: "And He is 
the propitiation for our sins : and not for ours only, 
but also for the sins of the whole world." On this 
passage we find the following remark: "j^o language 
could express the universality of the design of the 
atonement more clearly or strongly." But let us not 



282 church-members' hand-book or theology. 

be terrified by this confident and defiant manner of 
speaking ; for, to say the least, it is no credit to those 
who employ it; and I have no doubt the writer him- 
self could have expressed the universality of the de- 
sign of the atonement in terms stronger and clearer 
than the words of the quotation. 

1. In the first place, it is said, on the other side, that 
the apostle is addressing his instruction to believers 
who are already reconciled to God through the atone- 
ment ; and this will not be denied. They, therefore, 
think the apostle means all believers in every age and 
in every part of the world, and this explanation of 
the text is supported by the context. 

2. It is further argued that Christ is "a propitiation 
through faith in His blood." And we presume that 
no one will pretend that lie is really a propitiation 
to unbelievers; or a propitiation to any in any other 
way, and consequently this clear and strong proof is 
no proof at all to their purpose. 

3. In addition to the above, it may be considered 
that the passage under consideration has a direct ref- 
erence to the intercession of Christ. There is no di- 
rect reference to the atonement proper, though, of 
course, there could be no intercession without the 
atonement. "My little children" — a form of expres- 
sion which the apostle does not apply to the whole 
world of mankind. 

The passage in the First Epistle to Timothy, where 
it is said, "He gave Himself a ransom for all," etc., 
can not, with any propriety, be applied in a universal 
sense. The context requires a different construction. 

The believers in the doctrine of a universal atone- 
ment rely with a great deal of assurance on a passage 
in the second chapter of Hebrews — "That He, by the 



ATONEMENT. 283 

grace of God, should taste death for every man." This 
text is, in my judgment, the most difficult to reconcile 
with the doctrine of personal limitation in the atone- 
ment, of any that we find in the Bible. But it is said, 
on the other side, that the word " man " is not in the 
original, and that it should be translated every one; 
and it is so translated by the Bible Union. I could 
not give the reader a clear view of my idea of the 
meaning of the text without entering somewhat at 
large into the doctrinal part of the epistle, and that 
would lead me too much out of my way : but the 
verse in which the words occur, and the following 
verse, are very intimately connected, and I suppose 
that the inspired writer had the same persons in view 
in the ninth verse when he says " every one," that he 
had in the tenth when he speaks of "many sons." 

There is a passage in the fifth chapter of Second 
Corinthians which is thought to give strong support 
to the doctrine of universal atonement. It reads thus: 
" For the love of Christ constraineth us ; because we 
thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: 
and that He died for all, that they which live should 
not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him 
which died for them, and rose again." 

Whether this scripture affords any proof of the uni- 
versality of the atonement, depends entirely on the 
true interpretation of the text ; for no one will pre- 
tend that the word all must in all cases comprehend 
the whole human family ; and if that is not its mean- 
ing here, it will yield no support to the doctrine of 
universal atonement. Some of those who contend for 
this doctrine understand 'the apostle to teach the uni- 
versal depravity of human nature. They allege that 
the apostle takes it for granted, as a doctrine admit- 



284 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

ted by all, that Christ died for the whole human fam- 
ily ; and thence argues, that this being so, the whole 
human family were dead in sin. Eut to take this for 
granted is a very violent assumption. I apprehend 
that it is not true, in fact, that it was a doctrine ad- 
mitted by all, that Christ died for the whole human 
family, and there is no proof given or offered to sus- 
tain the assumption. 

And I would also remark that the depravity of hu- 
man nature is mot the subject of the apostle's dis- 
course, and is not alluded to in the chapter; neither 
is the subject of the total depravity of human nature 
discussed in the whole epistle. 

I would also further observe, that even if it were 
admitted that Christ died for every one of the human 
race, it would not prove the total depravity of human 
nature. It would prove that all are under the curse 
of the law, but not that all are totally cornet. Total 
depravity might be proved by the work of the Spirit, 
but not by the atonement of Christ; and it is not the 
practice of this apostle to prove his points by fallible 
arguments. Whether the doctrine is true or not, I can 
not accept this interpretation of the text. 

There are others who give a different interpretation 
of the text in question. They suppose that it was not 
the design of the apostle to teach that Christ died for 
all that were dead, but that all were dead for whom 
Christ died. This construction agrees much better 
with the succeeding verse, and indeed it is more in 
accordance with the scope of the passage; and they 
allege that a more literal rendering of the original 
would be, " then were they all dead." So that the ex- 
tent of the word all in the first member of the sentence 
is to be determined by its meaning in the latter. 



ATONEMENT. 285 

I believe this exposition is sanctioned by our best 
theological writers ; yet if I may be allowed the privi- 
lege of submitting my own views of the passage, I should 
incline to an interpretation somewhat different. I 
think the apostle refers to that federal relation which 
Christ sustains to His people. Paul frequently refers 
to it in his epistles. If Christ, the Surety and Head 
of His people, died for them, then they all, as mem- 
bers of His body, are considered as dying in Him. 
The same doctrine is taught in this text that we find 
in other scriptures: " Now if we be dead with Christ, 
we believe that we shall also live with Him." (Eom. 
vi. 8. See also ver. 6, ib.) "For if we be dead with 
Him, we shall also live with Him." (2 Tim. ii. 11.) 
"I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless 1 live; yet 
not I, but Christ liveth in me : and the life that I now 
live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God." 
(Gal. ii. 20.) Hence the apostle's reference to the 
resurrection, in the text under consideration, is quite 
pertinent; and the argument is this: That as Christ 
died and rose again into a new life, and we (mystically 
or federally) died in Him and rose in Him, we ought 
henceforth to live, not unto ourselves, but to Him who 
died for us and rose again. The same idea is brought 
to light again in the last verse of the same chapter. 
We will give the rendering of the Bible Union trans- 
lators, which, though in harmony with the common 
version, is probably more strictly literal: "Because 
we thus judged, that if one died for all, then they all 
died; and He died for all, that they who live should 
no longer live to themselves, but to Him who for them 
died and rose again." If this translation is correct, it 
bears favorably on the interpretation preseuted 
above. Of one thing; I feel assured — throughout the 



286 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

whole chapter the apostle is speaking to believers and 
of believers. The reader may examine for himself. 

There may be some other scriptures brought in 
support of the theory of universal atonement, but the 
arguments on both sides, I presume, are very similar 
to those already considered. There is, however, one 
more passage which impartiality requires us to exam- 
ine ; and I shall notice it the more willingly, as giving 
the reader a specimen of the way in which learned 
men, who are conscious of possessing some reputation 
for biblical scholarship, would force their opinions 
upon unsuspicious readers by positive and unqualified 
assertions. The text referred to is 2 Peter ii. 1 : 
" But there were false prophets also among the people, 
even as there shall be false teachers among you, who 
privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying 
the Lord that bought them, and bring upon them- 
selves swift destruction." Of this text it is said — and 
I quote literally — "It is expressly said that some for 
whom He (Christ) died, will perish." And again : 
"There could not be a more unequivocal declaration 
that some for whom Christ died will perish." Thus 
we see in what bold and unqualified assertions some 
learned writers will indulge themselves, in order to 
force their own peculiar opinions upon their readers. 
In this way they foreclose inquiry, and expect implicit 
submission to their dictates. Now the assumption of 
the writer is, that " some for whom Christ died will 
perish." Let us attend to his arguments and expla- 
nation of the text. He Says, " TThen the word bought 
occurs elsewhere in the New Testament, with refer- 
ence to redemption, the allusion is to Him " (Christ) ; 
and he proceeds to give us a number of examples, all 
of which are plainly to the point, though in some of 



ATONEMENT. 287 

them it was unnecessary to speak of an allusion, see- 
ing Christ is expressly named. But who ever doubted 
that when the words bought, purchased, and redeemed 
are used in reference to redemption, that Christ is the 
person referred to ? It was incumbent on him to show 
that redemption — the redemption of Christ — is referred 
to in the text by the word bought. This he does not 
attempt, though he well knew that it is a controverted 
point. The numerous passages adduced by him prove 
that which no one doubts; but this is proving nothing 
to the point; and that which his object requires to be 
proved, he would have us to take for granted. Why 
does he not prove, or attempt to prove, that which 
requires proof? What the author wished to impress 
on the mind of the reader was, that Christ is the per- 
son referred to in the text by the word Lord : this he 
fails to do, and he is religiously careful never to give 
the reader a hint that the word translated Lord is 
nowhere else applied to Christ in the New Testa- 
ment. Hence it is doubtful whether He is the person 
designated as " the Lord." Moreover, it is by no 
means certain that the word " bought " is used in its 
literal sense of purchased ; for the word is used fre- 
quently in the Bible where there is no reference to 
the payment of a price. And again, there is no proof 
in the text, or in the whole chapter, that the death of 
Christ is intended, and of course there can be no cer- 
tainty that the apostle had any reference to the atone- 
ment; and besides this, the term "destruction" is 
often used without any allusion to everlasting punish- 
ment. And yet our learned author affirms that the 
text proves " expressly " and " unequivocally " that 
Christ died for them, and that they perished. In 
this way he would override the private judgment of 
25 



288 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

the reader, and carry his point by downright dogma- 
tism. Testimony that is exceptionable in so many 
points of view can never be considered by the judi- 
cious and candid inquirer as decisive ; and if it would 
be illiberal to impeach the author's candor, we shall 
then be reduced to the necessity of doubting his crit- 
ical judgment. He could not plead ignorance to these 
objections to his view of the text, notwithstanding he 
makes no allusion to them. 

It has been objected against the commercial scheme 
of atonement that it excludes grace in respect to the 
pardon of sin. Now, it is not incumbent on me to de- 
fend a doctrine which I reject from the attacks of its 
opposers ; but it is incumbent on me to defend the 
truth, so far as I am able, from unfounded objections; 
and the objection, as they state it, is as applicable to 
the true doctrine of atonement as it is to that against 
which they urge it. I do not think I misapprehend 
the ground upon which they found this objection, be- 
cause their own illustration makes it unmistakably 
plain. If Onesimus owes Philemon a debt, and Paul 
pays it, Onesimus has a right to claim a discharge, and 
Philemon is bound, by simple justice, to release him. 
If a creditor (it is said) receives the whole amount of 
his demand, no matter whether from the debtor or 
from a third person, it can not be said with propriety 
that he forgave the debtor. There is no room for grace 
in the transaction. The objection, so far as I can see, 
is founded on a supposition that the atonement of 
Christ is not a perfect and complete satisfaction for 
sin, and, therefore, did not fully satisfy the claims of Di- 
vine justice. Indeed, the figure by which they illustrate 
it fixes the objection to that very principle. If Christ 
died for every human soul ; or, if He died for a select 



ATONEMENT. 289 

few, provided His death was a full and complete atone- 
ment, or satisfaction, for the sins of those for whom He 
died, such atonement would as effectually exclude 
grace from their pardon in the one case as in the other. 
I regret to see this objection employed by those who 
contend for the all-sufficiency and infinite value of the 
atonement of Christ. 

I will present the reader with the result of some of 
my reflections on the subject, and in doing so I shall 
lay down two fundamental propositions, viz : 

1. That the pardon of a sinner is an act of grace- — 
pure and special grace and mercy. 

2. That Christ, by His death, rendered a complete 
and perfect satisfaction to the claims of Divine jus- 
tice. 

To these propositions I shall adhere; and if it can 
not be shown that they are consistent with each other 
— if it can not be made to appear to my satisfaction 
that both may be true at the same time — I will cheer- 
fully ascribe it to my own blindness, but my postu- 
lates I will not renounce. 

The objectors contrive, by their mode of illustra- 
tion, to give the objection a j)lausibility which dis- 
guises the truth; but there is that in the very face of 
the objection which ought to awaken suspicion and 
provoke a critical examination of the figure by which 
they attempt to illustrate their argument. If we as- 
sume that the Divine government is not administered 
on principles of strict and exact justice, we would 
have room enough for the exercise of mercy in the 
pardon of sin ; but mercy thus extended would be at 
the sacrifice of justice. Or, if we take the ground 
that Christ did not suffer the penalty of the law, we 
might find scope for the dispensation of mercy in re- 



290 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

mitting the penalty of the law ; but then we might be 
met with the question, " Do we then make void the 
law" through the atonement? and the only admissible 
answer would be, We do; and Christ thus becomes, 
not a fulfiller of the law, but a nullifier of the law. 
Let us examine this figure by a comparison, and see 
whether it is, indeed, analogous to the subject which 
it professes to illustrate. 

1. In the first place it is contended by those very 
persons who admit this objection, that there is not, in 
every respect, a proper analogy between commercial 
law and criminal law. That crime is quite a different 
thing from pecuniary debt. In this they are certainly 
right ; and yet their argument seems to be founded 
upon the supposition that there is a true analogy be- 
tween commercial justice and criminal justice.. I 
think we should hesitate before we apply this figure. 

2. In the second place, I say that no creditor, 
debtor, and intervening friend ever stood, or can 
stand, in the same relations to each other that the 
parties concerned in atonement and pardon stand to 
each other. The relations existing between those 
parties are perfectly unique, and admit of no parallel. 
In this respect there is a very great want of analogy ; 
and I may add that this want of similarity is one 
that has an important bearing on the issue in ques- 
tion ; but it is sufficient at present that we recognize 
the fact of this want of parallelism. 

3. When a creditor receives the payment in full, he 
has no other claims upon the debtor. There are no 
other demands to satisfy, and the parties stand upon 
terms of perfect equality with each other, and the 
debtor is under no other obligation. The case is very 
different in respect to atonement and pardon. 



ATONEMENT. 291 

4. When a friend pays the debt of another, the expe- 
dient originates with himself. His specific object is 
not to secure the rights of the creditor, but to confer 
a favor on the debtor in releasing him from pecuni- 
ary obligation. It is not an expedient resorted to by 
the creditor himself out of kindness to the debtor. The 
creditor has no concern in providing the means for 
the debtor's release; neither does he make any sac- 
rifice in any respect that he may extend favor to the 
debtor. Analogy is wanting here in its most vital 
point. The payor might entertain an implacable 
hatred toward the creditor, and the creditor might 
bear equal ill-will to the payor. The creditor might 
also cherish a bitter enmity to the debtor, yet the 
transaction would, in itself, be legal and just. Not so 
in the pardon of sin. There is scarcely the shadow of 
applicable analogy. 

5. I shall now take higher ground. I assume that 
Christ has made full and complete satisfaction to 
Divine justice for sin, and that the remission of the 
penalty of the law may be claimed as a right — it may 
be demanded as a legal and equitable right on princi- 
ples of justice. But here I must enter my protest 
against the method of stating an acknowledged truth 
with an inference as if it were a simple proposition. 
Their argument is this: Christ has satisfied the claims 
of Divine justice; therefore the sinner has a right to 
claim his discharge. The proposition is true, but the 
inference is not legitimate. If the sinner himself had 
satisfied the claims of the law he would, as far as I 
can see, have a right to demand remission. If a cred- 
itor receives the full amount of his due, though at the 
hand of a third person, his claim is liquidated, and, ac- 
cording to the mere forms of judicial law, the debtor 



292 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

may plead it in bar of judgment; but every one must 
see that he has no claims of his own uj>on which to 
found a plea. The creditor is not brought under ob- 
ligation to the debtor to release him. If the debtor is 
released, it is to him an act of pure grace. 

But there is another capital deficiency in their mode 
of illustration, which shows that it ought never to be 
employed in that application. The supposition is, 
that a friend — an isolated, disinterested, and independ- 
ent friend — pays the debt. But this is not the charac- 
ter and relation in which Christ made atonement for 
us. He became one with us. He was our Surety — our 
Substitute. He assumed an obligation to make satis- 
faction to Divine justice for our sins, and paid the 
debt — calling it debt — in discharge of His own obliga- 
tion for our sake. He has therefore a firmly founded 
right to demand the release of those for whom He 
paid the debt, and whose Surety and Substitute He 
was in the whole transaction. If He, as Surety, is 
discharged, those for whom He acted in that relation 
are virtually discharged also. He, as Surety, and in 
the sinner's place, pays the debt, and, officiating still as 
Surety and in the sinner's place, claims, as a matter of 
right, the sinner's discharge. 

Let us view this subject of atonement and remission 
in its twofold relations, both as it respects the sinner 
and as it respects Christ as Surety. The atonement 
is a plea for both. It provides and supplies the sinner 
coming to a throne of grace in prayer for pardon, 
with a good, and acceptable, and prevailing plea, au- 
thorized by the promise. Oppressed with guilt, and 
coming to a throne of grace as a helpless sinner, an 
unworthy and wrath -deserving beggar — the only atti- 
tude in which a sinner ever ought to come, or can come 



ATONEMENT. 293 

acceptably — he may successfully plead the atoning 
blood of Christ for the remission of his sins: and this 
is & privilege which is graciously given to the believing 
sinner; and he exercises it as a 'precious privilege, and 
not as a rightful claim. 

On the other hand, Christ, as Surety, comes before the 
Judge officiating in judicial law and authority, and as 
the representative and Advocate of the sinner; and in 
this relation the atonement supplies him with a legal, 
judicial, equitable, and available plea, upon which He 
can legally claim and demand, in judicial administra- 
tion, the discharge of the sinner from penal liability. 
Thus we see that though they both bring the same 
plea substantially, there is yet an immense and essen- 
tial difference in the principles upon which they re- 
spectively present this confessedly good plea. Christ 
pleads on the principle of judicial right — the sinner on 
the principle of special grace. I might enlarge on this 
topic to a much greater extent, and would be glad to 
do so, but I forbear. 

There is one more aspect of this subject, in which it 
is specially necessary that we examine it — it would be 
unpardonable to overlook it. The argument of those 
who contend that there is no grace, on the ground that 
the debt has been paid by a friend, extends no further 
than to mere legal exemption. They can not pretend 
to carry it further, for the principle upon which they 
found the argument contemplates nothing more. The 
creditor says to the debtor : " Your friend has dis- 
charged your debt, and it would be unjust in me to 
require it of you — I, therefore, release you." And so, 
in like manner, the Divine Judge says to the sinner: 
" Christ has suffered the penalty of the law for you, 
and therefore it would be unjust in me to inflict it 



294 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

upon you — I discbarge you." Would such forgiveness 
as this fill the desire of a true lover of God? It may 
be, and probably is, as much as the unrenewed heart 
would expect or desire; but the true child of God can 
not be satisfied with this; he knows that his God has 
just cause to be angry with him, and he feels that he 
can not have 'peace with Him, except God is reconciled 
to him. David did not execute the penalty of the law 
upon Absalom, but he said, "Let him not see my 
face." The pardon for which I pray includes some- 
thing more than mere legal absolution. It is not enough 
that my Father should say to me, " Thou shalt not 
die;" let Him also say, "Since thou wast precious 
in my sight thou hast been honorable, and I have loved 
thee." I want to be precious in His sight — to .be hon- 
orable before Him — and to be the object of His love, 
even of His forgiving love. Let my reconciled Father 
say, " Is he my dear son ? Is he a pleasant child? for 
since I spake against him, I do earnestly remember 
him still." The truly contrite spirit desires such par- 
don as is exemplified in the father of the prodigal. 
Forgiveness in this point of view can never be charged 
with the absence of grace — it is an act of grace — 
special grace. There is nothing but grace in it. The 
satisfaction made to the law by the atonement does 
not reach it. It is the forthgoing of eternal love. 
The truly* penitent soul wants that kind of pardon 
which is stipulated in the everlasting covenant: "I 
will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their 
sins and iniquities will I remember no more." The 
atonement was interposed to make way for grace to 
abound — for grace to reign — in the pardon of sin. 
That kind of remission which the objector's argument 
implies, might consist well enough with the remem- 



ATONEMENT. 295 

brance of sin, for it might be extended without one 
spark of love to the sinner — simply an exemption 
from the legal penalty — a great blessing, truly, in itself, 
but coming far short of that forgiveness of sin by 
which the grace of God is so much glorified. 

The Specific Design of Atonement. 

In the further prosecution of our inquiries into this 
subject, I shall lay down some fundamental truths 
which I consider as being indispensable preliminaries 
to a proper and correct understanding of the true the- 
ory of atonement. And I shall, in the first place, pre- 
mise — 

1. That the atonement is a true, complete, and per- 
fect satisfaction to Divine justice for sin. 

If it is not, it is not atonement in any proper sense of 
the term. 

2. That the atonement is, in itself — in its nature and 
worth — sufficient for the sins of the whole family of 
Adam. 

Nothing more, therefore, would be necessary, by way 
of satisfaction for sin, if it were intended that the whole 
race of sinners should be saved by it. 

3. In the third place, that it did actually and ef- 
fectually accomplish all that for which it was designed. 

4. That the atonement was strictly vicarious. Christ 
died in the room of sinners. He died that the sinner 
might not die. He suffered the penalty of the law in 
the place of the sinner, that the sinner might be saved 
from the penalty of the law. 

5. That the atonement is truly personal in its pri- 
mary relation. It was made for persons; not merely 
for sin in the abstract, but for the sins of personal sinners. 



296 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

If it was not, it is wrong to call it vicarious. 

6. That the great object — the primary and special 
design — of the atonement is to redeem sinners from the 
curse of the law. 

Any theory of atonement that does not secure this 
object, is neither worth confirmation nor refutation. 

Now, keeping these preliminaries in view, we are 
prepared to inquire into the true extent of the atone- 
ment. And I shall not select general and indefinite 
modes of expression that may mean more, or may mean 
less, but the most pointed and definite terras that ray 
limited knowledge of the English language will sup- 

Ply ' 

In the second of the foregoing postulates it is assumed 

that the atonement of Christ is, in its objective full- 
ness — in its intrinsic merit and value — sufficient for the 
redemption of the whole world. This attribute of the 
atonement, I believe is not denied by many at the pres- 
ent day, and I shall not, at this time, solicit the read- 
er's attention to this topic; but I must ingenuously 
own that I do not see the relevancy of some arguments 
alleged in support of it. 

If any shall say that by the death of Christ there 
were other objects accomplished besides the redemption 
of sinners, I shall not controvert their position. The 
death of the Son of God was accomplished to make 
atonement for sin, as the Scriptures abundantly teach, 
though other objects, as consequential or incidental re- 
sults, might, and certainly did, follow. But I shall still 
contend that so far as we, sinful men, have any inter- 
est in the atonement, the primary and special object of 
the atonement was the redemption of sinners. Outside 
of this object we are under no necessity of discussing 
the subject, though it is the privilege of all to in- 



ATONEMENT. 297 

vestigate the subject to any extent that the Scriptures 
will authorize. 

By the third postulate assumed above, it is affirmed 
that the atonement did effectually accomplish all that 
for which it was designed; by the fourth, that it was 
strictly vicarious or substitutional ; and by the fifth, 
that it was strictly personal. Inow, if the atonement 
was any thing that can with propriety be called atone- 
ment, I do not see how these premises can be denied; 
and if they are conceded as true, I am at a loss to see 
how it can be universal, without also admitting uni- 
versal salvation. So that the precise point to which we 
must direct our inquiries, is the design of the atonement 
in its relation to sinners personally . And if we admit 
that God had, in providing atonement, a determinate 
design or purpose to save sinners — personal sinners — 
through the atonement, the question for our present 
consideration will be^ reduced to this : Was it the Di- 
vine purpose to save all the sinners of the human fam- 
ily by the atonement, or to save those only who will be 
actually saved? 

That God had a fixed and determinate purpose to 
save sinners, I suppose would be admitted by all, what- 
ever might be their views of the atonement ; and, indeed, 
it can not be made a question if the authority of Script- 
ure is to be respected. And as He saves sinners in 
no other way than by the atonement of Jesus Christ, 
He provided the atonement that He might accomplish 
His purpose of saving sinners. And whatever purpose 
He might have respecting those who will not be saved, 
it surely will not be pretended that He did not design 
to save those who will eventually be saved; for the 
supposition involves so many absurdities that the ra- 
tional mind rejects it intuitively. 



298 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

Without atonement there is no salvation. That is 
the foundation upon which our salvation stands. Now 
if, in laying this foundation, it was the Divine purpose 
to save the whole world of mankind, then all the 
world will certainly be saved, or the Divine purpose- 
fails. In so far as the Divine purpose fails, God sus- 
tains a defeat, and Satan obtains the victory; and it 
seems to me this is bound to be the inevitable result 
if the atonement is universal in its personal design. 
If the atonement was designed for the redemption of 
all, and there are any who do not obtain all for which 
it was made, it is manifest that the atonement does 
not accomplish all that for which it was designed. I 
can see no possibility of the contrary; for that there 
is a failure is too obvious to admit of debate. 

This subject is important, and to arrive at the truth 
is, in the highest degree, desirable. It is right, there- 
fore, that we should examine it in every light in which 
it can be proposed to our consideration. With this in 
view we say: 

If the love and grace of God has ever been mani- 
fested to this lost and guilty world, it is brought out 
into most conspicuous exhibition in the death of the 
Son of God — in the fact that He died for sinners; in 
other words, that He made atonement by His death 
for our sins. The grace of God shines in every part 
and every act of this most marvelous transaction. It 
is a fountain of grace — a treasure of grace — to 
personal sinners. Now, if this atonement was made 
for all persons, then every person must have a per- 
sonal interest in all its gracious provisions, equal to, 
and corresponding with, the personal relation in which 
he stands to this universal atonement; and thus all 
are comprehended within the boundaries of atoning 



ATONEMENT. 299 

grace, for all are included within the design for which 
the atonement was made. But, notwithstanding, it is 
admitted that all will not be saved; and that, because 
it was not the design of God to make it savingly 
efficacious to those who are lost. According to this 
scheme, those who are finally lost have a secured 
interest in the grace of atonement — secured by the 
purpose of God — because Christ died to make atone- 
ment for them; but it was the Divine purpose not to 
make this atoning grace savingly efficacious to them, 
but He did design to make it savingly efficacious to 
those who are saved. By this arrangement — this lim- 
ited design in the application — the grace of the appli- 
cation is not only withheld from those who are lost, but 
they are actually, and by design, excluded from the 
grace of the atonement which was already secured to 
them by their interest in it. The sovereign discrim- 
inating grace of God, in making atonement specially 
for a part, and not for all, has been stigmatized as 
partiality. But in this scheme of universal atonement 
there is something that looks worse than partiality — 
it is sovereignty with a vengeance. And I can see no 
way to escape this offensive consequence if we contend 
for one unlimited personal design in making atone- 
ment, and another distinct and limited personal design 
in applying its benefits ; but I see no necessity for 
more than one design. The object and design of pro- 
viding atonement is to save sinners, and the object and 
design of applying its benefits is to save sinners. The 
object in both is the same ; and why should there be 
more than the one design? Neither do I think they 
can show any good result that is gained by the suppo- 
sition of two distinct purposes — the one comprehending 
all, and the other only a part; whereas, by the ob- 



jective limitation in the second design, the universal- 
ity of the first is rendered objectively nugatory in the 
exact proportion to the number of those who fail of 
salvation. The atonement, in its nature and as a means 
of grace to sinners, is sufficient for all, and is free to all, 
and was designed to be so; but I see no advantage 
arising from the theory of circumscribing the design 
of the application within narrower limits than the de- 
sign of the atonement. 

It is not in place for the advocates of universal 
atonement to say that the reason why any sinner is 
lost is because of his unwillingness to accept, or seek 
for, the blessings procured by the death of Christ; for 
although this is strictly true in fact, yet it is not to 
the point, and as an argument it will weigh as much 
against one scheme as the other; for those who are 
saved are naturally, of themselves, as unwilling as they 
that are lost. And no sinner is ever really and truly 
disposed to seek and accept the blessings of the atone- 
ment before the grace of the atonement is applied — it 
is the application of this grace that makes him willing. 
The great design of the atonement, in its relation to 
us as sinners, is to procure the gift of the Holy Spirit 
— to open up a pathway of mutual reconciliation and 
spiritual communion between God and His alienated 
children — to destroy the enmity of the sinner's heart — • 
and to subdue his perverse will and bring it into sub- 
jection to the gospel. This is the prime, comprehen- 
sive blessing procured by the atonement. The gift of 
the Spirit is itself the application of the benefits of 
atonement; and till this gift is received there is no 
true and real willingness or desire to seek or receive 
the application of the atonement in the hearts even of 
those who are saved. If this is not correct, it is in 



ATONEMENT. 301 

vain to talk of salvation by grace. Such talk would be 
like clouds without water. And if it is true, the ques- 
tion remains essentially the same. Did God design 
to give the Holy Spirit to every sinner alike, through 
this medium of atonement, or to those only who will 
be saved by it? If the atonement was made designedly 
for — specifically for — every one personally, and the 
Spirit, in consequence, is given to every one personally, 
the question must arise, " Why is not every one 
saved?" I confess myself unable to answer it with- 
out admitting a disastrous failure — a failure both in 
the icork and in the design of the atonement; for it is 
manifest that the atonement does not accomplish all 
that for which it was made and designed. It may be 
asked: If Christ did not die to make atonement for 
the sins of the whole family of man — for every sinner 
— why should all men universally be called upon to 
accept of its gracious provisions? But, on the other 
hand, it may be inquired : Why should a true, effectual, 
and complete atonement be made for some when it 
was not the will of God to make it efficacious to their 
salvation, as the saving benefit was contingent upon 
the Divine will? That there is matter couched in such 
questions that contains solid and sound argument, I 
have no doubt; but it may not be very easy, in every 
-case, to determine with positive certainty that our 
conclusions are legitimate. Leaving the latter of these 
questions to the reader's reflection, we will proceed to 
offer some thoughts on the former. 

To arrive at a satisfactory solution of this problem, 
it is necessary to determine, in the first place, what in 
the atonement will constitute a sufficient ground to 
justify universal invitations to sinners to believe the 
gospel and accept of salvation through Christ. 



302 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

As the atonement was made for sinners, if it is suf- 
ficient for all sinners, I am not able to see what more 
is necessary to warrant any preacher to extend the in- 
vitations of the gospel to all sinners; nor what more 
is necessary to warrant any sinner to come to Christ, 
having the assurance of the promise that he shall ob- 
tain the blessings of the atonement. 

I am willing, and I sincerely desire, that our view 
of the atonement should be subjected to the severest 
scrutiny; for I desire that all should know the truth, 
whatever the truth may be. And if our doctrine can 
not stand before the truth, by all means let it fall; 
for this reason I would like to keep before the mind 
of the reader as clear and precise a conception of the 
point under discussion as possible. I will attempt an 
illustration ; and being unskillful in the art of con- 
structing figures, I will borrow one from the prophet, 
which, though used by the proj^het for a different pur- 
pose, will, as a figure, answer mine very well: "I will 
even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the 
desert. The beasts of the field shall honor me, the 
dragons and the owls : because I give waters in the 
wilderness and rivers in the desert, to give drink to 
my people, my chosen. This people have I formed for 
myself; they shall show forth my praise." (Isa. xliii. 
19-21.) Here the Lord is represented as making riv- 
ers in the desert, through which His people had to 
pass in their return to their own land. The beasts of 
the forest, and the wild fowls, even the most hateful 
of them, might freely drink of these waters; and they 
are said to honor Grod for these rich and free supplies. 
There was water enough there for all, and it was free 
to all, and even the enemies of the Lord, and of His 
Israel, were not prohibited the use of these waters ; 



ATONEMENT. 303 

but the purpose, the specific design in providing these 
waters, is expressly declared to be to " give drink to 
my people, my chosen." So the provisions of the 
atonement are sufficient for all, and are free to all, but 
the special object in making the atonement was the 
redemption of the Church — even all that will ever be 
finally saved. 

Expounding the doctrine of the atonement and call- 
ing sinners to repentance, are different things ; and, 
in the latter work, the minister has no business with 
the Divine purpose as it relates to persons. His office 
is to show the sufficiency of the death of Christ for 
the redemption of sinners, even the chief of sinners; 
that salvation is free to all that believe ; that Christ has 
promised to save all that believe in Him. Some have 
labored hard to show that the sufficiency of the atone- 
ment for the whole world of sinners is not enough to 
authorize a sinner to believe in Christ for salvation, 
but that the sinner must be assured that Christ died 
for him personally. But their arguments are not sat- 
isfactory, and can not be made to agree with the teach- 
ings of our Savior and His apostles; and the minis- 
ter who invites a sinner to come to Christ on the 
ground that Christ died for him in particular, goes out 
of his proper line of work. Neither do I believe there 
is any thing in the Scriptures, either as doctrine, or 
in the examples of Christ and His apostles, to justify 
any such specific mode of exhibiting the gospel of sal- 
vation ; and the preacher who adopts it subjects him- 
self to a degree of difficult and unnecessary labor, 
which he may not be able to perform ; for if the sin- 
ner doubts, as he often, if not always, will do, the 
preacher is bound to prove to the sinner's satisfaction 
that Christ did die for him in particular; and in this he 
26 



304 church-members' hand-book op theology. 

will seldom or never succeed. The only way in which 
he could hope to succeed would be by attempting to 
prove that Christ died for every sinner ; and if he 
could convince the sinner of the truth of this doctrine, 
it would not satisfy his doubts, for he would still say, 
that although Christ died for all, yet thousands would 
be forever lost, and how could he know that himself 
would not be one of them ! he would still be left in the 
dark. But if we preach Christ as the Savior of sinners : 
( that He died for sinners ; that His blood cleanses from 
all sin — which is. easily proved — and show them from 
the word of God, that whoever believes in Christ as 
the Savior of sinners, shall have eternal life — and the 
Scripture proofs are abundant — the work of preaching 
the gospel is, in this respect, easy. We have no need 
to resort to theological niceties. The whole business 
of inviting sinners to Christ is plain, and our work is 
ready prepared to our hand. 

If the atonement was not sufficient for any more than 
those who will be saved by it, it would indeed appear 
to be inconsistent to call upon all sinners to believe 
and be saved. But that doctrine of atonement which 
we present is liable to no such objection ; for if the 
atonement is sufficient for all sinners, and every sinner 
is assured that he who trusts in this all-sufficient 
atonement shall be saved, what more can be necessary 
to authorize the universal invitations of the gospel? 
To bring the design of the personal application of the 
atonement into the gospel call, is to put it in a place 
where it does not belong, and where, I believe, the 
Scripture never puts it. 

It is alleged that it is the duty of all men to believe 
in the atonement, and to trust in it for salvation; and 
if Christ did not die for all men, but for a part only, 



ATONEMENT. 305 

it follows that it is the duty of those for whom atone- 
ment was not made, to trust in that which is not true. 
]STow, with all my profound respect for those who 
argue in this way, I must insist that their argument 
is radically defective. It confounds things that are 
different; it makes belief and trust identical, which they 
are not ; it leaves the promise totally out of view in 
respect to the act of -trusting, whereas reliance on the 
atonement, without a promise, would not be trust, but 
presumption. To say that it is not the duty of a sin- 
ner to believe the gospel, unless atonement was made 
for him, is not sound theology. Iso atonement was made 
by the death of Christ for the fallen angels, yet it is 
the duty of Satan to believe the doctrine of atonement ; 
and I have no doubt that he does believe it. It is 
the duty of every intelligent creature under the Divine 
government to believe every word that God speaks. 
When the Almighty declared to Satan that the Seed 
of the woman should bruise his head, it was the duty 
of Satan to believe it; and I do not doubt that he did 
believe it, so far as he understood the import of the 
language. 

But it will be said that Satan could not trust in the 
mercy of the atonement, because the atonement was 
not made for him. It is true it was not made for 
him, and it was not his duty to trust in it. ISTeither 
would it be the duty of any guilty man to trust in it 
for life, if there had been no promise of life given to 
those who do believe in it. Our trust has immediate 
respect to the promise. If there has been an atone- 
ment made by the death of Jesus, which is in itself 
sufficient to satisfy for all the sins of all the human 
family, and G-od has promised eternal life to every 
sinner who believes in this atonement for life, it 



300 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

is the duty of every sinner to believe in it; and it is 
also the privilege and the duty of every one who does 
so believe to trust in the faithfulness of God to fulfill 
His promise. I reject the doctrine of trusting in the 
atonement without a promise. The promise is made 
to those who believe in Christ, and a sinner has no 
right to inquire whether the atonement was made 
specially for him, before he believes the promise. And 
for a sinner to believe that Christ died specially for 
him, is not what he is required to believe in order to 
his salvation. 

But it is said that the gospel call comes from God, 
and not merely from the minister. And this is true. 
Their object seems to be to defend the Divine charac- 
ter from the supposed inconsistency of inviting all 
sinners to the gospel feast, when it was designed spe- 
cially for only a part. But if the provisions of the 
atonement were amply sufficient for all — if there is 
"bread enough and to spare" — the Divine character 
stands in no need of apology. As it is God who calls, 
so it is God who gives. He is the only rightful owner 
of the provisions, and He only has right to dispose 
of them ; and He bestows them upon whomsoever He 
will, according to His good pleasure. He has made 
known to all the world that it is His pleasure to give 
the bread of life to every hungry soul that is willing 
to partake. The only question that can be pertinent, 
if God invites, is, whether he has an exclusive right to 
invite all, and to give eternal life to every sinner who 
will accept of it? "All that the Father giveth me 
shall come to me; and him that eometh to me I will 
in nowise cast out." Shall we be told that the sinner 
must be assured that he is one of those whom the 
Father has given to the Son before He is warranted to 



ATONEMENT. 307 

come ? That if be is not one whom the Father gave, 
he can have no assurance that Christ will not cast him 
out? And shall he stand aloof and refuse to come till 
he gets positive evidence from G-od himself that he is 
verily one who was thus given, when Christ is telling 
him in the strongest terms that He will not cast him 
out ? The doctrine that a man must believe that Christ 
died for him specially, before he has a right to take 
comfort and cherish hope, I regard as a pernicious 
doctrine. It casts a stumbling-block in the way of 
the coming sinner, and can not be reconciled with the 
Scriptures. 

If the reader has not been detained upon this topic 
till his patience is quite exhausted, I will offer an il- 
lustration of my views in respect to the sufficiency and 
the design of the atonement. We will suppose that ten 
men of our country have committed some depredations 
upon a neighboring nation, to the value of ten thou- 
sand dollars, for which they are arrested and confined 
in prison. The ruler of that nation is willing to re- 
lease all of them whenever the whole injury is re- 
paired, but will not release any one of them till the 
whole amount of the damage is made good. Now, 
among these unhappy culprits I have two sons, 
whom I am resolved to redeem. To effect this object, 
I pay the ten thousand dollars in full, for the definite 
purpose of delivering these two sons ; whereupon the 
ruler acknowledges himself satisfied, and issues his 
mandate to open the prison door and announce full 
liberty to all the prisoners. Deliverance is as free to 
all as it is to my two sons, for whom personally the 
redemption price was specially paid. Would there, 
then, be any inconsistency or impropriety in my tell- 
ing all these prisoners that I had paid the ransom price 



308 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

in full of their liberty, and procured the opening of the 
door for all ? And if I persuade and entreat them all to 
avail thems'elves of the purchased deliverance, shall it 
be said that I am "mocking them," " trifling with 
them," " tantalizing " them with vain hopes and in- 
sincere professions of good-will? Would not such an 
impeachment be positive slander? Any limitations or 
restrictions in my design in making the payment 
would make no limitation in the fullness or value of 
the payment, nor in the liberty procured by it, nor in 
the freeness of the proposed deliverance ; neither 
would it pertain to any of them to inquire into the 
extent of my. design before they would accept of the 
purchased benefit. 

The atonement of Christ is sufficient for every sin- 
ner, and is free to every one; and the benefit is prom- 
ised to every one that believes. The Divine design in 
regard to the personal application constitutes no con- 
dition authorizing the sinner to believe, nor interfer- 
ing with his privilege to believe, whether such sinner 
is included in that design or not. 

Atonement and Intercession. 

We shall now, in the last place, examine the doctrine 
of atonement in its relation to the intercession of 
Christ as our Great High Priest. 

According to the line of discussion which I had 
marked out for myself, I might confine myself merely 
to the design of the atonement in respect to the per- 
sons for whom it was made. In this point of view the 
question would still be, whether the atonement was 
designed to be universal, and the design included all 
men, or whether it was designed for the redemption 



ATONEMENT. 309 

of those only who will eventually be saved by it? But 
there are other aspects of intercession that are highly 
edifying besides the particular bearing it has upon the 
mere extent of the atonement. The general plan of 
this work, take it as a whole, would seem to require 
that I should indite a separate chapter on the subject 
of Christ's intercession. I had made up my mind, 
however, that I would treat of intercession in connec- 
tion with atonement; but if T should confine my dis- 
cussion to the single topic above stated, I could not do 
justice to the subject of intercession, neither would I 
do justice to the reasonable expectations of the Chris- 
tian reader. 

The intercession of our Advocate with the Father 
is a subject so replete with spiritual instruction ; so 
rich in sources of comfort and consolation to the be- 
liever ; so well suited to impart spiritual strength to 
the children of God, and to establish them in the faith 
of the gospel ; and it sheds so much light on the great 
plan of salvation, that to omit it in a work of this 
kind, or to view it in only one of its aspects, would 
hardly be excusable ; and besides this, it would be dif- 
ficult, if not impracticable, to gain clear conceptions 
of the subject in that one point of view without tak- 
ing a more enlarged view of the general doctrine. 
On the other hand, it is not possible to arrive at any 
thing like an adequate understanding of the doctrine 
of intercession without considering it in connection 
with the atonement; for the relation between the two 
is so intimate, that there could be no real intercession 
without atonement; for intercession founded upon any 
thing else would resolve into mere influence, which is 
utterly inadmissible. An intercession of this nature 
would be in the highest degree derogatory to the Di- 



310 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

vine character, and would, in fact, devolve on our Ee- 
deemer a service which it would be impossible for Him 
to perform. But this part of the service of our High 
Priest is a far more noble work — a work worthy of 
His Divine dignity and of His high pre-eminence. It 
is a service consistent with His present glorified state, 
and worthy of His employment as the Son of God ; 
a work for which He, and He alone, is every way com- 
petent, contemplating objects of infinite importance, 
and both requiring and insuring certain and infallible 
success. 

It seems necessary, therefore, that we should take a 
more general view of the subject, and ascertain, as 
nearly as we may, or at least as nearly as our pres- 
ent object requires, what are the prime and essential 
characteristics of our Lord's intercession in behalf of 
His people. To obtain this consideration it is neces- 
sary to inquire what the intercession of Christ is — in 
what does it essentially consist? And I think we 
have abundant data to direct our inquiries. The 
chief difficulty will be found in making a proper 
and skillful use of the materials already provided and 
presented to our use in the subject itself. And we 
have the inspired word as the test by which we may 
judge of the soundness and appropriate adaptation 
of these materials. 

T\Te shall endeavor to be as brief and concise in this 
discussion as the importance and utility of the doc- 
trine will admit. We have already said that the in- 
tercession of Christ is not the exercise of any influence 
on the mind or disposition of the Father, inducing 
Him to do that for us which it is not His will and de- 
sire to do. This would be impossible. God is self- 
moved in every thing He does. He is in one mind, 



ATONEMENT. 311 

and none can turn Him. He is God, and changes not, 
and He will do all His pleasure. It is not possible 
that any thing external to Himself can exert an influ- 
ence on His mind. The doctrine that the intercession 
of Christ is necessary, or is designed to have an influ- 
ence on the Father, inducing Him to entertain gracious 
dispositions towards us, or to bestow favors upon us, 
otherwise than wiiat is already His merciful purpose 
to do, involves so many absurdities, and is so degrad- 
ing to the Divine character, and is so inconsistent 
with the sacred Scriptures, that I think it needless 
to enter upon a systematic refutation. And there is 
no necessity for an intercession of that nature. If it 
were not the good pleasure of our Heavenly Father to 
do all for our salvation which it is necessary He should 
do, no intercession, no entreaties, no beseeching or 
persuasion which could be employed by our High 
Priest could prevail with Him to change His course 
of proceedings with us. "And I say not unto you, 
that I will pray the Father for you : for the Father 
himself loveth you." (John xvi. 26, 27.) There is no 
need that Christ should intercede with the Father to 
love His children, for He loves them and delights to 
bless them independently of intercession. 

Effectual intercession, such as can be acceptable with 
God, must be based upon a principle of fundamental 
justice. It must be founded on a plea, and such a 
plea as will triumph over every opposing resistance 
that can be set against its validity and success. If 
such a prevailing plea can not be found in the blood 
of atonement, it will be in vain to seek for one else- 
where. Christ as crucified — as offered up and sacri- 
ficed for our sins on earth — is the atonement; and 
Christ, as having put away sin by the sacrifice of Him- 
27 



312 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

self, is essentially the intercession in heaven. The 
blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the atone- 
ment which cleanses us from all sin ; and the same blood 
carried within the veil (so to speak) and sprinkled 
before the mercy-seat, is the plea which constitutes 
the intercession. 

Having now taken the ground (and it is the only 
true and tenable ground that can be taken) that the 
intercession of Christ, to be successful, must be founded 
on a plea — or, rather, that it is the presentation of a 
valid and righteous plea — -and that this plea is the 
atonement made for our sins — let us examine this 
plea in some of its relations and characteristics. 

1. The plea, considered in its relation to God, must 
be perfect and competent to answer all the ends, and 
accomplish all the objects contemplated by the inter- 
cession. It must be well pleasing to the holiness of 
the Divine nature, and capable of satisfying all the 
demands of Divine justice, so as to demonstrate that 
God is just in justify ing the ungodly. It must be such 
as will sustain all that the intercession itself is in- 
tended to effect. As the intercession is made to God it 
must be acceptable to Him, and such as He will ap- 
prove in judicial administration. It must be a right- 
eous plea, and possess in itself the element and all the 
virtue of a perfect righteousness ; not only a plea that 
may prevail, but one of such efficacy that it can not fail. 
And the plea which our Intercessor presents on our 
behalf is "the precious blood of Christ." We^need 
not enlarge here on the merit and worth of this plea. 
It speaks for itself. 

2. The Intercessor's plea, in its relation to those for 
whom it is offered, must be competent to effect all that 
their necessities require. It must be infallibly effica- 



ATONEMENT. 313 

cious to procure all the privileges and blessings that 
their condition and interests make necessary, and 
such as will effectually preclude the possibility of any 
exceptions. To the same extent that intercession is 
necessary and appropriate, so far must the efficacy 
and success of the plea extend and prevail; for if we 
allow any lameness, defect, or deficiency in the matter 
of the plea, the intercession founded upon the plea will 
accomplish nothing for us. But as the perfect atone- 
ment made by Christ is the plea of intercession, and 
as this atonement is already accepted in heaven, there 
can be no danger, nor intleed any possibility of failure, 
except the intercession were to be extended beyond 
the limits of the atonement. Those attributes of the 
Divine nature which make an atonement necessary, 
also require the ministration of an intercession ; for 
both are related to God in the same respects, and both 
are related to us in the same respects. The great end 
for which atonement was made, in relation to us, was 
our salvation ; and the great end for which interces- 
sion is made, in the same relation, is our complete 
salvation. The two are co-extensive, the one being 
neither more nor less extensive than the other. And 
this view corresponds most exactly with the typical 
representations of the priesthood of Aaron, which was 
a very significant and instructive ceremony of typical 
service. The blood of the sacrificial lamb, offered for 
sin, which made atonement at the altar of burnt-offer- 
ings, outside of the sanctuary, was applied to that 
altar ; and the same blood was taken into the sanctu- 
ary and applied to the altar of incense, inside of the 
sanctuary, and was also sprinkled before the mercy- 
seat, which was in the most holy place, and the high 
priest officiated in the whole transaction ; and all 



314 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

was done throughout for the same person, or for the 
same community, in whose behalf the offering was 
made. And, further, the end or object for which the 
service was performed never failed of its complete ac- 
complishment. 

B, As we are now inquiring into the nature of inter- 
cession, we should notice some of. those relations in 
which our Intercessor stands to Him to whom the in- 
tercession is made. And this brings into view most 
directly and prominently the priestly office of Christ, 
for His intercession is comprehended within, and per- 
tains exclusively to, his priesthood ; and the office in- 
cludes two branches of official service, but it is but the 
one work — but the one whole service. Christ must 
first offer Himself as a sacrifice for sin — as a whole 
burnt-offering for us — and then He must present Him- 
self, with His perfect work, in the presence of God for 
us, as our Intercessor. Neither of these alone, inde- 
pendently of the other, would effect our complete sal- 
vation. 

Although Christ took upon Himself this office of 
High Priest, with all its incumbent duties and bur- 
dens, vnllingly, and of His own choice, yet He did it 
by the appointment of the Father. (Heb. iii. 2.) He 
was ordained of God. (Heb. v. 1.) God glorified Him 
to be made a priest, and conferred on Him this high 
honor because He was the Son of God. (Heb. v. 5.) 
He was made a priest by the oath of God. (Heb. vii. 
20.) And was consecrated by the oath of God to an 
everlasting priesthood: " Thou art a priest forever." 
(Heb. vii. 28.) Thus we see He was divinely ap- 
pointed, and solemnly consecrated by God to a special 
official service. The Father assigned to Him His 
official work — a service to be rendered to God. He 



ATONEMENT. 315 

was ordained and consecrated to do the will of God: 
" Lo ! I come to do Thy will." A great deal by way 
of legitimate inference may be deduced from these con- 
siderations, but there is one inference that is unavoid- 
able: It is not possible that God should appoint His 
Son to an office, and invest Him with all its official 
functions, and assign to Him a work and service in 
that office, bad He not known that His High Priest 
was botb able and faithful to perform and finish the 
whole duty pertaining to the official institution. 
Neither would He institute an official ministration that 
would not be adequate to the purpose for which it was 
ordained; for it is not God's method of proceeding, 
nor is it consistent with His infinite wisdom to choose 
and establish a fallible and precarious system of oper- 
ation. And this inference is decisively confirmed by 
the Scriptures in reference to both branches of the 
priestly service of Christ. In regard to His atonement 
it is said, " By one offering He hath perfected forever 
them that were sanctified;" that is, those for whom 
the offering was made. And again : " The blood of 
Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin." And 
in reference to His intercession it is written, " He is 
able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God 
by Him." And also Jesus said to His Father, "And I 
knew that Thou nearest me always." I believe that 
no instance can be referred to where a priest of 
Aaron's order officiated, whether for an individual or 
for the whole congregation of Israel, that the service 
was not completely successful, and infallibly procured 
the good or averted the evil for which the sacrifice 
was offered. The offering up of the sacrificial victim 
at the altar of burnt-offerings, and the application of 
the blood to that altar, was the type of atonement; and 



316 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

the priest taking the blood into the sanctuary and ap- 
plying it to the altar of incense, and sprinkling it be- 
fore the mercy-seat, is the type of intercession. And 
shall we suppose that the official priestly action of 
Christ is less efficacious and successful in behalf of 
those for whom He officiates than the merely typical 
transactions of a temporary and rudimental economy 
that could make nothing perfect, and was designed to 
vanish away? 

It comes in place now to take some notice of what 
the intercession of Christ effects or procures for those 
in whose behalf He intercedes; and here we have large 
scope for very interesting discussion — much larger than 
we shall attempt to occupy. This topic should be a 
delightful theme of meditation to every true believer 
in Christ. 

Keeping in mind, then, that the intercession of our 
High Priest is the presentation of a prevalent and all- 
sufficient plea, on our behalf, that will justify the 
Father in removing from us the condemnation in- 
curred by our sins, and in bestowing upon us such 
blessings as our necessities may require; and keeping 
in mind, also, that this plea is the satisfaction made to 
the Divine law for our sins, by the death of Christ, 
and we have the subject of discussion laid plainly be- 
fore us in such order as makes the prosecution of our 
inquiry an easy task, for the merit of atonement is 
the efficacy of intercession. 

We shall not undertake to make a full representa- 
tion of every particular case, but we will exhibit the 
subject somewhat in detail ; and the reader, being in 
possession of our rule, a few exemplifications will en- 
able him to apply the rule in any requisite case ; for 
every covenant blessing, and every spiritual grace, 



ATONEMENT. 317 

comes to us through the intercession, as founded upon 
the merits of that one competent and comprehensive 
plea. 

Let us look at those blessings and blessed relations 
secured to the believer in the provisions of the cove- 
nant of grace, as they are related to this plea. 

1. And first, we are guilty rebels against God ; we 
are justly liable to His wrath ; we are the objects of 
His righteous displeasure ; we fear His anger, because 
we are conscious we deserve it, hence we need forgive- 
ness; we desire reconciliation with Him. What plea 
now can we make? What better plea than that which 
our Intercessor makes for us? for " without shedding 
of blood there is no remission." But the Intercessor 
says, " This is my blood of the new testament, which 
is shed for many, for the remission of sins." And 
again : " For if, when we were enemies, we were rec- 
onciled to God by the death of His Son." 

2. We have transgressed the Divine law, and have 
incurred the penalty, and we must stand before God 
in the judgment. What plea can our Intercessor make 
for us that shall avail to avert the execution ? " Be- 
ing now justified by Mis blood, we shall be saved from 
wrath through Him." " Being justified freely by His 
grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." 
" By His knowledge shall my righteous servant justify 
many, for He shall bear their iniquities." 

3. Our redemption in full is ascribed to the death of 
Christ. To this we owe our deliverance from sin, and 
from death, and from the grave. In a word, if the 
question is asked, " Who is he that condemneth ? the 
plea and the answer is, "It is Christ that died." Can 
you supply your Intercessor with a better plea than 
this? Or can you add any thing to this plea that shall 



318 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

give it efficacy and merit? — any thing that shall give 
it a value and sufficiency which it does not possess in 
itself, independently of any supplementary considera- 
tions? 

4. But we will consider this plea in relation to those 
spiritual graces which constitute true Christian char- 
acter. And here opens to us a larger field for contem- 
plation than we can undertake to survey at present; 
but a few words to the wise may be sufficient to guide 
the earnest and inquiring mind to the treasures con- 
tained in it. 

5. There is a general and comprehensive view of 
the subject which embraces all that we have need to 
say on this topic; and this we will present to your 
consideration as a kind of groundwork for what may 
follow. 

It is through the intercession of Christ that the 
Holy Spirit is given. I would hardly suppose this 
fact has escaped the notice of attentive Bible readers ; 
but because we find it stated in such intimate connec- 
tion with the atonement, it may be well to refer to a 
few scriptures: u For the Holy Ghost was not yet 
given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified." (John 
vii. 39.) "And I will pray the Father, and He shall give 
you another Comforter, that He may abide with you 
forever; even the Spirit of truth," etc. (John xiv. 16, 
17.) " For if I go not away, the Comforter will not 
come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto 
you." (John xvi. 7.) I might refer to other places, 
but as no one, I presume, will deny the doctrine, I need 
not detain the reader on this point. 

JSTow the gift of the Spirit is fallen man's great ne- 
cessity. Without it, he must perish in his sins. The 
Spirit must give him life, enlighten his mind, subdue 



ATONEMENT. 319 

the enmity of his heart, and, in short, make him a 
new creature. The gift of the Spirit virtually includes 
every thing that is necessary to prepare us for the 
service of G-od in this world, and to enjoy His blessed 
presence in heaven. Thus we see that it is through 
the intercession of our High Priest that spiritual life, 
with all its sanctifying operations, is given to us, and 
maintained in us with all its holy exercises. 

But as it may be that many of the younger class of 
Christians might be edified by seeing the application 
of the fundamental plea, or its relation to our more 
particular needs, we must give a few examples. 

We need the intercession of Christ to gain accept- 
ance for our prayers. It is through the atonement 
that we have access to God by a new and living way, 
which Christ has consecrated for us through the veil — 
that is to say, "His flesh ;" and our interceding Priest 
has given to Him much incense, which He offers up 
with our prayers, whereby our supplications gain ac- 
ceptance, and we obtain an answer of peace. We 
offer our prayers in His Name, and His Name makes 
them well-pleasing to God. 

We have grace, mercy ^ and peace, through our Lord 
Jesus Christ, because He has " made peace by the 
blood of His cross." 

While we dwell in the flesh, and sojourn in this, 
world, beset with temptations on every hand, and too 
often un watchful, we are apt to be betrayed into sin. 
We then need, and feel our need, of the Divine com- 
placency: "And if any man sin, we have an Advocate 
with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He 
is the propitiation for our sins." Tn this text we see 
that the propitiation is the plea of intercession. And 
as He ever lives to make intercession for us, and His 



320 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

intercession never fails of success, He is able to save to 
the uttermost them that come to God by Him. 

It remains, now, that we examine this subject of our 
Redeemer's intercession, in its relation to the design of 
the atonement, in its personal application ; for it is 
through the intercession of Christ that the benefits of 
the atonement are applied to us, and in no other way. 
If it was the design of God that the blessings of the 
death of Jesus should be assured to every one of Adam's 
lost family, then of necessity the atonement must have 
been intended for all, and all must have been included 
personally in the design for which the atonement was 
made. Not only must it have been sufficient in itself 
for the redemption of all, but all must have been in- 
cluded, specifically and personally, in the special de 
sign of redeeming grace. This theory would agree 
very well with the doctrine of universal salvation; 
but we reject that doctrine, because the Bible con- 
demns it. But if effectual intercession is made by the 
Mediator for those only who will be- saved — and I be- 
lieve this is conceded — and yet the atonement was 
made for all personally, then it follows inevitably 
that, in a personal point of view, the intercession is 
limited, while the atonement is unlimited and uni- 
versal. And it is almost impossible to repress the in- 
quiry, Why should not the intercession be co-extensive 
with the atonement, and as universal in its design? 

The merit of atonement is the all-sufficient and effi- 
cacious plea of intercession, and the only plea that 
the Intercessor presents in behalf of those for whom 
He intercedes; and as this plea is sufficient for all — 
if it was designedly provided for all — why should some 
of those for whom it was provided be denied the ben- 
efit of it? To account for this, the believers in a 



ATONEMENT. 321 

universal atonement have recourse to Divine sover- 
eignty, and that is the only alternative. But to the 
thinking mind it will seem at least to be an incon- 
gruous and unsuitable place to introduce sovereignty; 
for the application of the fruits of the atonement is 
made in sovereignty to all to whom they are applied, 
whether to a part or to all the family of man ; and to 
interpose an act of discriminating sovereignty at this 
stage of the proceedings, can have no other effect than 
to exclude from the benefits of the atonement a part 
of those for whose benefit the atonement was purposely 
made. But let us take a more enlarged view of this 
sovereignty, as it acts and operates in the plan of sal- 
vation ; for Divine sovereignty obtains throughout 
the whole scheme of man's salvation from beginning to 
end, as it does also in all the works of God. But, in 
the great arrangement for the salvation of sinners, 
this sovereignty is the sovereignty of love. It was the 
sovereign love of God to sinful men that gave His Son 
to be a propitiation for our sins ; and this love — this 
sovereign love — characterizes the whole plan and pro- 
ceeding from its origin to its final consummation. 
The Supreme, independent God was under no obliga- 
tion to sinners to give His Son for our redemption. 
This gift was the forth -going of His sovereign love; 
and if we exclude discriminating sovereignty from the 
exercise of this love in providing atonement, and say 
that all men alike are the objects of this love, and 
that it was the gracious design of the Father that all 
men should have an equal interest in this great atone- 
ment, this redeeming love ; and say also — which a 
universal atonement necessarily presupposes — that the 
Son of God, in the exercise of this same sovereign 
love, died to make atonement for all and every one 



322 church-members' hand-book of theology. 

equally and alike, excluding all discriminating sover- 
eignty from the design in its relation to persons, and 
we have a universal atonement in all its fullness, the 
production of an undiscriminating sovereign love of 
the Father and the Son. And this atonement is the 
foundation and basis of a process of intercession to be 
made by the Son in behalf of the persons for whom 
this universal atonement was accomplished. But right 
here — -just at the transition from atonement to inter- 
cession — we must introduce a discriminating exercise 
of sovereign love, which leaves out of its range vast 
numbers who were the personal objects of that love 
which provided and achieved a universal atonement. 
There is such manifest incongruity in this arrange- 
ment of a sovereign procedure that, as I said before, 
makes it apparently a very inappropriate place to in- 
troduce a sovereign constitution ; and if we postpone 
the introduction of a discriminating sovereignty to 
any subsequent stage of the operation of sovereign 
love, the same unwelcome result must necessarily en- 
sue. Sovereignty in the plan of salvation must be 
admitted; there is no possible way to exclude it, and 
I would hope that no Christian would wish to exclude 
it; and if we recognize it in the beginning as first 
in order— the only place where I think it can be con- 
sistently admitted, and, indeed, the only place where 
there is any room for it — we can then see the consist- 
ency of sovereignty in every subsequent step of the 
progressive operation, and we see it as sovereignty 
shining in all the beauty of Divine love. Sovereignty 
admitted at the beginning may be defended, and, in- 
deed, it will defend itself; but if interposed at any 
subsequent stage of the process, I can not see how we 
will defend it; and if we seek for a reason or a pro- 



ATONEMENT. 323 

priety for its subsequent intercession, I apprehend we 
shall not find it in the perfections of the Divine char- 
acter, nor in the testimony of His revealed word. It 
would not be a sovereign choice of love, but a sover- 
eign rejection of some ^of the objects of sovereign love. 
I am ready to doubt whether the advocates of a uni- 
versal atonement themselves would admit the in- 
bringing of a discriminating sovereignty that would 
exclude from the intercession any of those for whom 
the atonement was personally intended. Will any say 
that the atonement was not sufficiently meritorious 
and efficacious to satisfy for all for whom it was made ? 
I suppose not. Or will any say that the intercession 
of the Son of God is too weak and imperfect to prevail 
for all those for whom intercession is offered up ? 
Neither will this be admitted. Or must we assume 
that Jesus our High Priest refuses to intercede for any 
of those for whom He suffered and died? Yv T hy should 
He? And if not, what then? Must we allow that 
the Father will not hear His intercession? If noth- 
ing of all this is contended for, I see no alternative ; 
we must reject the doctrine of an atonement made for 
all personally and for every one alike. I must leave 
it to those who contend for a universal and personal 
atonement, and deny a universal and personal salva- 
tion, to assign to its proper place the exercise of a 
sovereignty that makes the difference in the final 
destiny. That the atonement of Christ is sufficient Toy 
all — that it is free to all — and that its benefits are 
assured to every one that will, I have no doubt ; and 
this is quite sufficient to devolve responsibility on 
every one that hears the gospel ; and every one being 
left to his own choice, he must abide the consequences 
of his own voluntary decision. 



b_ 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: July 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 





014 475 317 3 * 



